Get rid of the guns. You do realize you are addressing the law abiding citizens right? You constantly harass the law abiding yet refuse to admonish the criminals. Smells like "agenda".
Nope, I am addressing a cancerous blight on the USA.......bloody guns and yes, the mis-use (manipulative political abuse even) of 2A. Okay, I agree, law abiding citizens will lose a toy they have. Even their most favourite toy. So be it. Baby goes out with the bathwater. 'You' cannot continue doing nothing except offer stupid window dressing bandaid pathetic excuses about video games, fatherless kids, no school discipline, drugs, mentally impaired people etc etc when that can be struck down with one single blow. None of that is unique to the USA, all of that is everywhere across the Globe, and yet only in the USA do we see these regular massacres and a bloody weapon of mass domestic destruction is the chosen method of delivery.
I would have some respect (if not a lot) for the standard Republican excuses every time there is another mass shooting in the US (i.e. the standard trifecta of 'its the fault of the internet, violent video games and mental illness etc etc)' IF having said that they actually then committed real time and effort into addressing those supposed 'causes'. In other words if they sincerely believe these issues are the route cause of mass shootings then do something them. Legislate violent video games out of existence. The internet? move for stronger Federal regulations controlling it more tightly and the investment needed to do it. Mental Health issues? invest heavily in treating it. But what do they actually do about these supposedly serious drivers of violence in their societiy - nothing, zip, nada. It would actually be lot simpler for them if they blamed things they couldn't be expected do deal with. So the next time there is mass shooting I suggest they point the finger at things like the phases of the moon, sunspots or severe geomagnetic disturbances. In short any pseudo scientific BS excuse they can think of that gets them off the hook about actually having to work towards a solution.
Yes...a toy...a lethal one. A thing you have no need for as widespread as it is, indiscriminately across your Nation and one which is as available as a Barbie Doll. I have no idea what 'smh' means...unless you mean Sydney Morning Herald.
You can determine my needs from where you are? How do you know I don't need a firearm? smh = shake my head
I'm on your side, but there has been a 10/22 used in a mass shooting. I've seen the video and it's hard to watch. Just sayin. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/washington-mall-shooting-suspect-arcan-cetin-confessed-documents/
I can compare your needs where you live where guns are everywhere, and the needs of Australians where guns are almost nowhere. The blight on the USA can be removed.....get rid of the bloody guns. Why not just say 'Shake my head?' Meh.
I'm advocating for positions of truth. Dismissing the notion that there hasn't been a mass shooting event committed with a Ruger 10/22. Problem?
No, it is intellectually honest. A mass shooter is a mass shooter. Cherry picking for the sake of political gain is worse than intellectually dishonest. It is down right deceptive.
Dunno. You'll have to explain that. Rural property owners in Australia have guns to meet their needs.
A crip indiscriminately spraying bullets at a group of bloods is fundamentally the same as a racist indiscriminately spraying bullets at the race he hates. The wounded still need treatment, the dead still need buried, the perp still needs to pay, assuming he survived. But progressives are at least intelligent enough to think that through, they simply don't like that the reality of mass shootings does not match the narrative they've been pushing.
Oh bull hockey as my grandmother would say. When gang violence takes the life of an innocent it is all over the news. When gang violence takes the life of other gang members it doesn't. When someone takes a gun and starts shooting up a Walmart then the mobile press vans are dispatched. It has little to do with race and a lot to do with location. If it were about race we'd be hearing a lot more about white gangs but we don't. Most people really don't care much about two gangs fighting each other over drug sales. News agencies want maximum consumers and since there is little interest they're not going to do much coverage. If a little kid gets killed now people can relate because they think of their kids as innocents as welland can relate to the mothers and the media with give them 15 minutes of fame. Everyone goes to a Walmart or club and shooters there are domestic terrorists trying to put fear into the public and THAT is going to get a lot of coverage. You may think it's about race because domestic terrorists do tend to be white but seriously, it's all about the targets. If two gangs, one black and one Hispanic decide to shoot it out in the Mall of America the police will have to fight their way past all the news vans that get there before them even if no bystanders are wounded.
If it's only about ratings then why do they spin it politically? I watched some of the ABC coverage of the El Paso incident. The commentator was describing the footage. Twice he commented that we were watching victims "covered in blood", not a drop of blood was visible in any of the clips they showed. His manifesto, plays up his racist comments and calls him "right wing" but plays down his comments about corporations destroying the environment, clearly a far left position.. It's all about shaping the views of the American people.
It says every mass shooter who shot four or more people. What about the mass shooters who shoot less than four?
Interesting dynamic. Psychological profilers will tell you that a very large percentage of serial killers were made by the domineering abusive mothers that spawned them....
