The Guns Of Hate
Comments
-
On the topic of Guns, which this thread is supposed to be about. Do you know that less than 500 people were killed by rifles in 2017? https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-11.xls That goes in the face of the narrative gun control advocates try to paint. There were more murders by body parts (hands fists etc) than there were rifles. 289 more to be exact.
-
@reformed posted:
I refuse to speculate. But it is clearly not a racist tweet. Liberals created the false fake news narrative.
There's basically nothing to "speculate" about, and there is no "false, fake news narrative." There are no other members of Congress the president could have been tweeting about back in July. You know that's true. You spent a dozen or more tweets in this thread attacking those "stupid brats." Now you want to abandon ship and hypothesize, of course without evidence, that the president might have been falsely accusing OTHER members of Congress of being foreign born.
And yes, it clearly WAS a racist tweet. A true, real news narrative. (See how helpful headlines are when used in place of substantive posts?)
-
@reformed posted:
On the topic of Guns, which this thread is supposed to be about. Do you know that less than 500 people were killed by rifles in 2017? https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-11.xls That goes in the face of the narrative gun control advocates try to paint. There were more murders by body parts (hands fists etc) than there were rifles. 289 more to be exact.
To reword your post, using the very same data to which you provided a link: Do you know that in 2017, the 403 homicides attributed to rifles accounted for only 3.7% of all homicides by firearms? That means in 2017 there were nearly 11,000 homicides attributed to firearms. It also means that in 2017 homicides by firearms accounted for more than 70% of all 15,129 homicides in this country. Why, there were nearly as many homicides by handguns in 2017 (7,032) as there were by ALL OTHER MEANS tracked by the FBI, including those "by body parts (hands fists etc)." (8,097)
Now THOSE NUMBERS don't "[go] in the face of the narrative gun control advocates try to paint." Sadly, those numbers paint the narrative all by themselves, no help from gun control advocates needed.
-
Only racist in the biased partisan mind of a race baiting liberal.
-
Of course then we need to look at how many of those handguns were obtained legally. Many of them are not. It is NOT easier to get a gun than medications as some idiots like to claim. So if they are being obtained illegally, then gun control wouldn't fix the problem anyway.
-
@reformed posted:
Of course then we need to look at how many of those handguns were obtained legally. Many of them are not. It is NOT easier to get a gun than medications as some idiots like to claim. So if they are being obtained illegally, then gun control wouldn't fix the problem anyway.
Advocates of sensible gun laws don't assert that their recommended reforms would eliminate deaths from firearms, anymore than advocates of laws against driving under the influence assert that such laws eliminate drunk driving. Gun law reform advocates DO assert, however, that such changes would reduce the number of deaths from firearms, just as drinking and driving law proponents assert that such laws reduce the number of people who drive while intoxicated. Our society has decided that reducing the number of people who drink and drive is a good thing. Now we have to decide that reducing the number of people who die from firearms is a good thing.
-
And based on what evidence would it reduce it? Hmm? Let's look at mass shootings alone. How many of those would have been prevented by the expansion that gun control advocates want?
-
@reformed posted:
And based on what evidence would it reduce it? Hmm? Let's look at mass shootings alone. How many of those would have been prevented by the expansion that gun control advocates want?
At least one! The shooter in the Odessa, Texas, mass murderer who killed seven on August 31 of this year was properly denied a gun purchase due to his history of mental health concerns. But he then circumvented background check laws by leveraging the private sales loophole (background checks are not required in private sales) Had no such loophole existed, that killer would not have got his gun, at least not that way. (And yes, the private seller would have had to abide by the law, but that's true with every law. Red lights don't force drivers to stop at intersections - nor does every driver does stop at them - but no one argues we shouldn't have laws against running red lights.)
-
Ah and there is where you are wrong. Typical liberal narrative. That would not have stopped this shooting. First, as you said, it assumes people abide by that law. But here's what we know. The person who sold him the gun clearly doesn't care about current gun laws so why would he abide by the background checks on private sales? https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2019/09/05/sorry-antigunners-new-development-in-odessa-shooting-blows-up-your-narrative-n2552687
Not to mention, private sale background checks are not even practical.
Private sale background checks would not likely have stopped Odessa. Try again.
-
Suddenly there are crickets in the room.
-
@reformed posted:
Suddenly there are crickets in the room.
This comment, coming within 24 hours of its predecessor post, is rich, coming from a poster whom on multiple occasions I've had to ask the same question three, four, five, seven, even TEN times over periods of several days in order to get a direct, often ANY, response.
@reformed posted:
Ah and there is where you are wrong. Typical liberal narrative. That would not have stopped this shooting. First, as you said, it assumes people abide by that law. But here's what we know. The person who sold him the gun clearly doesn't care about current gun laws so why would he abide by the background checks on private sales? https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2019/09/05/sorry-antigunners-new-development-in-odessa-shooting-blows-up-your-narrative-n2552687
Not to mention, private sale background checks are not even practical.
Private sale background checks would not likely have stopped Odessa. Try again.
First, you claim that I'm wrong, that I offer what you call a "typical liberal narrative," but then almost immediately thereafter you affirm and employ the caveat I included in the post that was so "wrong" and "liberal" - that the effectiveness of background check laws depends on implementation. Confusing.
You referenced the caveat about law implementation. Why didn't you also reference the example about red lights at intersections I placed after that caveat? Does the fact that not everyone abides by traffic laws against running red lights to you mean we shouldn't have laws against running red lights? After all, did our laws against running red lights save any of the countless number of people who have been killed over the decades by drivers who ran red lights? Obviously not. So why have those laws?!
Had you been Moses, would you have said to God, "You know a lot people aren't going to abide by these ten commandments of yours. They're just a waste of the rock their written on"?
If laws stopped all the behaviors they prohibited, we wouldn't need courts! Sadly, we need courts because laws don't stop - can't stop - all illegal conduct. But that's not a sensible argument against the enactment and enforcement of laws. We enact laws, I hope, because we think they help build a society and culture shaped by our values and ideals. We do NOT enact laws, I am certain, because we think everyone will obey them.
A powerful aphorism in recent years has been "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good." If we waited to pass laws, including expanded background check laws, until we knew everyone would obey them, a) we'd never pass any laws, and b) we'd make the perfect the enemy of the good.
-
No I am not affirming. The background checks would not have stopped this. Period.
Red lights are practical, background checks have no real way of being enforced.
We already have gun laws. No, they don't stop all deaths. So to your stupid redlight analogy. Since not all stop lights stop people from running them we should do something more right? It never ends. It's just dumb. Not realistic, not practical, and doesn't fix anything.
-
@reformed posted:
No I am not affirming. The background checks would not have stopped this. Period.
How can you "know...period" what would have been the impact of a background check that wasn't and isn't in place?
Red lights are practical, background checks have no real way of being enforced.
If you're right that background checks have "no real way of being enforced," how do you explain the fact that before he purchased his weapon through a private sale (which was not covered by background check laws) the Odessa shooter was denied a firearm purchase because he failed a background check (mental health history)?
As for red lights, the point of your previous post seemed to be that in your view people will not abide by them, so we shouldn't have them: "The person who sold him the gun clearly doesn't care about current gun laws so why would he abide by the background checks on private sales?" So why not carry that identical logic into ALL laws? Speed limit laws, for example. 90% of drivers break speed limit laws EVERY DAY. Why have speed limit laws if people aren't going to abide by them?
We already have gun laws. No, they don't stop all deaths.
Did you notice I made this point, just more broadly, in my previous post when I wrote, "If laws stopped all the behaviors they prohibited, we wouldn't need courts! Sadly, we need courts because laws don't stop - can't stop - all illegal conduct"?
Did you ALSO notice that in the very next sentences I wrote, "But that's not a sensible argument against the enactment and enforcement of laws. We enact laws, I hope, because we think they help build a society and culture shaped by our values and ideals. We do NOT enact laws, I am certain, because we think everyone will obey them"?
Do you agree that we don't enact laws because we think everyone will obey them?
Do you agree that laws are needed EVEN IF some people violate them?
So to your stupid redlight analogy. Since not all stop lights stop people from running them we should do something more right? It never ends. It's just dumb. Not realistic, not practical, and doesn't fix anything.
I never tire of your "stupid" eloquence.
Your question misses the point entirely. The point is that while there ARE laws against running red lights, there are NO background checks for private or gun show firearm sales. That means people caught running red lights CAN be held accountable for running a red light, but people "caught" avoiding background checks through gun show or private firearm sales CANNOT be held accountable for avoiding a background check. So we don't have to do "more" about running red lights; it's already against the law! But we DO have to do "more" when it comes to background check loopholes because the law currently does NOT require background checks for all firearm sales.
-
I am talking about private sale background checks have no real way of being enforced, or implemented for that matter.
And do you really think that someone who is illegally selling a firearm in the first place would actually go through and do a background check? No.
-
@reformed posted:
I am talking about private sale background checks have no real way of being enforced, or implemented for that matter.
In your previous post, you claimed that "the background checks" would not have prevented the shooting. This additional specificity changes your point.
Enforcement? Not likely on the front end except by the honor system - and from what we're told, gun owners are law-abiding citizens, so they will abide by the law - but surely on the back end. When a firearm is used in the commission of a crime, a records check will usually identify whether the shooter passed all necessary background checks.
But whether a law can be fully/perfectly implemented is not the standard. People fish without fishing licenses all the time. It's only when they're caught by fish and game enforcement personnel that they are held accountable. Law-abiding, principled fishers routinely purchase up-to-date fishing licences, but others don't. Does that mean we shouldn't have fishing license laws?
And do you really think that someone who is illegally selling a firearm in the first place would actually go through and do a background check? No.
And you really think that someone who is intent on illegally murdering someone in the first place will actually change his or her plans because murder is against the law? No. SO WHY HAVE LAWS AGAINST MURDER?! According to the stats YOU cited, there were more than 15,000 homicides in the U.S. in 2017. What good are murder laws? GET RID OF THEM!!!!!!
EDIT: And kudos for abandoning your ill-founded objections to my red light analogy.
-
How did I abandon your red light analogy? I didn't. It doesn't hold water. Apples/Oranges. That being said, If you can't verify the background check on the front end it makes it useless in preventing these crimes. Besides, how many times have mass shootings (which are rare despite what the media says) been as a result of this loophole? This is an undue burden on law abiding citizens that has no real impact on curbing gun violence.
-
@reformed posted:
How did I abandon your red light analogy? I didn't. It doesn't hold water. Apples/Oranges. That being said, If you can't verify the background check on the front end it makes it useless in preventing these crimes. Besides, how many times have mass shootings (which are rare despite what the media says) been as a result of this loophole? This is an undue burden on law abiding citizens that has no real impact on curbing gun violence.
This is beginning to feel like a game of whack-a-mole.
First, you claim that "the background checks" wouldn't have prevented the Odesssa shooting. When I demonstrate the factual inaccuracy of your claim, you change it to private background checks. When I point out the place of the honor system among gun owning citizens, your objection morphs into a concern for the "undue burden" of reporting the identity of a new gun owner.
"Undue burdens" are part of life. My goodness, I think waiting at the DMV to renew my license is an undue burden, so get rid of that law! I think having to file a tax return is an undue burden, so get rid of those forms! And I think forcing people to have photo ID to vote is an undue burden on lots of law abiding citizens, so get rid of those laws! (I bet you don't mind that "undue burden" on that group of law-abiding citizens, do you?)
Do laws against murder curb murder in this country? If they don't, do you recommend that we rescind those laws?
I concluded that you abandoned the red light imagery because you posted no response to the post in which I identified the clear differences between red light laws and background checks. And you didn't post a response because you couldn't post a response. Those two things ARE indeed apples and oranges.
-
No, I had already been talking about private background checks earlier Bill. Do keep up.
I also had already pointed out they are unpractical.
We are clearly never going to agree. You are on the side of stupid insanity and thats fine.
-
@reformed posted:
No, I had already been talking about private background checks earlier Bill. Do keep up.
I also had already pointed out they are unpractical.
I merely quoted your post.
Since you referenced keeping up, how about responding to the questions I posed in my previous post? Do laws against murder curb murder in this country? If they don't - perhaps because they're "unpractical" - do you recommend that we rescind those laws?
We are clearly never going to agree. You are on the side of stupid insanity and thats fine.
The level of intellectual and rhetorical sophistication in your critiques of those with whom you disagree continues to amaze.
-
Brethren,
In my opinion, the owners of AK-47 and AR-15s are preparing for war. That is to kill people, primarily and animals, secondarily. There is no other use for these guns. There were made to kill! The blood of the dead are on the hands of manufactures, laws-makers, gun owners, and politicians refusing to address the matter after so many mass shootings. Let's not forget about the master manipulator, to keep these guns in circulation, is the NRA. Only God can forgive them for their sick influences on the American citizenry and cowardly politicians.
These guns are like the appendix of the body. Yes, you have one, but you can live a normal healthy life without it. How could any true Bible believing Christian, could or would, own such weapon of war and fight doggedly to keep high capacity magazine ammunition available? It just a matter of time before the next mass shooting. 10, 9, 8, 7, etc. Only the where and how many killed, remains... CM
-
No they don't curb murder. HOWEVER they are not a manmade law, they are a God-Made moral law. Not the same with gun control. Apples and oranges again.
-
Yes, preparing for war. Correct. That's the purpose of the 2nd Ammendment. Yes, guns were made to kill, or shoot targets, cans, clays, etc. No the blood of the dead are not on anyone but the shooters themselves. It's ridiculous to think so. Are people who have been killed by knives is their blood on knife manufacturers and knife owners? What about who people who die in car crashes, is that the responsibility of the manufacturer? That's the most absurd and idiotic argument ever.
So many mass shootings? Mass shootings are RARE.
-
Reformed,
What is "ridiculous" is to contradict yourself and your sense of reasoning. What mind would conceived "knives" and "cars" were made to kill. They may kill by accident, but they were NOT DESIGNED to KILL! Do your homework. The aforementioned guns were designed and manufactured, marketed, advertised, shipped, and sold to kill. You can use it for target practice, but it was not designed for target practicing. When used as such, it helps the owners and users to become efficient in killing. Knives and cars have no such principles behind it.
I am surprised of your incongruent reasoning. Slow down and stop trying to be wise in your own eyes. Would you admit that you are wrong in your quest to weaponize knives and cars, solely for killing?
The "the purpose of the 2nd Ammendment" [Amendment] can into being because certain men held other human beings as property (slaves), dishonor treaties (Native Americans), massacre of innocent, stolen lands, and sexual assults. When you mistreat people and stole, one would do anything to hold on the his ill-gotten gains. Therefore, the birth of the 2nd Amendment. Who can say it better than you. In your own words: "Yes, preparing for war. Correct. That's the purpose of the 2nd Ammendment. Yes, guns were made to kill...", so said, Mr. Reformed. America is living her past and her past is on display today.
Who are the owners of 95% of the AK-47, AR-15s, and other high-powered rifles with large caliber magazines, preparing for war and many believe to have mental-illness? Research is likely to prove the "privileged", young adult to mid-aged, some racist, marginalized, disgruntled, low self-esteem angry white men. It's a trend no one wants to say openly. CM
-
Wow you really need to study history on the 2nd. You clearly live in an alternate reality. It is false to say many owners of AR-15s have mental illness. That is a spin from the liberal lunatics like yourself. Not founded in reality.
-
Mr. Reformed,
You said, "That is a spin from the liberal lunatics like yourself. Not founded in reality". 🤔 I guess you're referring to Fox News, Sean Hannidy, and your vacillating beloved President, Mr. Trump. They all hold the "mentally-ill view", I shared with you above (for mass-shooters). They take comfort to cover for gun owner and the NRA. "You can't have your cake and eat it too".
As a "denier of truth" on guns, you should do some research on the the Mass Shooters in America. You will see that what I said above is so. These shooters are grossly mentally ill and/or hard-core racist and hateful. They have no regard for life, God, or man. Why do you seek to defend them? Why you refuse lend your voice to keep these guns (made to kill) out of their reach?
Is this a proper position for a father, husband, Christian, a "man of God" and one who claims to love the rule of law? Do you love the NRA more than human life? Guns were made to kill. I thought you were one of those "pro-lifers".
You seem to love death and instruments of death (and encourages others) to do likewise in fostering laws to make guns available to very sick and out of control people. What sickness you internalizes unconsciously? Examine yourself! CM
PS. It's nice if you would admit that you were wrong about cars and knives (made to kill). It would add to your reasoning and credibility. Put some distant between you and the way your President (Trump) deals with matters when he is wrong. Live up to being "Reformed", Mr. Reformed. CM
-
What does my talking about the history of the 2nd have anything to do with the "mentally ill view"? I didn't deny any truth on mass shootings. Imerely pointed out that mass shootings are extremely rare. I definitely did not defend them and it is dusgusting that you suggest I did.
When have I ever said guns should be allowed to sick individuals? I didn't. You are putting words in my mouth. Typical liberal propaganda.
I don't admit I am wrong if I am not wrong.
-
Reformed,
This doesn't mean you're not wrong.
- Is this a proper position for a father, husband, Christian, a "man of God" and one who claims to love the rule of law?
- Do you love the NRA more than human life?
- Would you admit that you are wrong in your quest to weaponize knives and cars, solely for killing?
- How could any true Bible believing Christian, could or would, own such weapon of war and fight doggedly to keep high capacity magazine ammunition available?
- How could a "pro-lifer" collect, promote laws, and be in love with guns when they were made to kill?
- When will you come to your Christian-mind and put the Ten-commandments above the second Amendment?
Your family, the citizenry of the USA, and the world awaits your answers, especially, to this last question. CM
-
- Yes, my position is proper.
- No I do not love the NRA more than human life, what an absurd assertion.
- I did not create a quest to weaponize knives and cars solely for killing so no, I will not admit I am wrong.
- Because I believe in self-defense. I proudly own guns. I proudly support high capacity magazines. I proudly support AR-15 rifles and I think more rifles should be available to the common man.
- Because self-defense is a pro-life position.
- I do put the ten commandments above the 2nd Amendment. But guess what, the 2nd doesn't violate the 10 commandments.
-
This is sick or the most deceived thing one can say to avoid the reality of the situation at hand. CM
-
How about actually give a rebuttal to what I said? Oh, it's because you know your position is bogus.
