Why hasn't the left gone all frothing mad about the School Shooting in Perry Iowa?

the Right wants all this stuff hidden from the public

 

Enough to kill a lot of unarmed people very quickly.

Enough to kill a lot of unarmed people very quickly.

Enough to kill a lot of unarmed people very quickly.

The point being that these metrics can -and eventually will- just as easily be used as an argument to ban pump action shotguns as semi-auto rifles.

Prolly the same way a 17 year old gets possession of weed or alcohol or porn -via crime. Should we make it harder for adults to get all those too?

 

This is what it mostly boils down to. Once some info is learned about the shooter, the left decides whether to react or to stay quiet.

 

most gun banners or gun restrictionists arrive at their positions from one of two ways: 1) an emotional reaction like the soccer moms who join Everytown for Gun banning after learning about say Sandy Hook. They know nothing of guns, nothing of crime control but feel a need to do something. when their emotionally based jihads are attacked as emotobabbling nonsense, they because angry and push for more gun bans in retaliation. 2) those who are political activists on the left and see gun rights activists as the enemy.

in either case, the foundation of the anti gun activists' motivation does not include an understanding of how firearms work and how criminals operate. And this is continually proven on this board and others

 

Evasive answers because you know the point I'm trying to make.

 

My motivation is based on seeing another mass shooting story here in the US and realizing we are the only industrialized nation on earth that has to deal with this problem.
These other nations, obviously, are doing something we are not doing (or not doing something we are doing). Obviously there is a way to cut down on the number of mass shootings that DOES NOT include putting MORE guns out there.

Most gun advocates or gun fetishists arrive at their positions in one of two ways 1) Ignoring the carnage going on in the US where guns has now become the leading cause of death among children 2) Thinking that "thoughts and prayers" are the solution to the problem despite ongoing evidence that it is not.

 

which proves my point. You felt a NEED to do something and apparently don't understand that other countries' situations are far different can ours. Your claim about "gun fetishists" proves again my point that cultural and political loathing of gun rights advocates-NOT CRIMINALS-is what drives many anti gun proposals. I also like your hatred of religion. I am agnostic but I laugh at your loathing of prayer. again, your views are based on a cultural animus

 

Other counties situations ARE different than ours and that's the point. What makes their situation different? What are they doing (or not doing) differently from us that leaves us as the only one with this horrendous problem?

DEATH is what drives ALL "anti gun" proposals.

I don't "loathe prayer"....I loathe inaction over action when people are dying.

 

Bold: The only way that they arrived at those numbers is by including 18 and 19 year olds. Which are ADULTS. Not children. IE: They "fudged" (i'd say they straight up LIED) the numbers in order to make a pre-determined outcome in order to generate more emotional outrage. And it succeeded in you.

And no one has claimed that "thoughts and prayers" is a solution that is nothing more than a left wing talking point. Gun control is not a solution either. Yet gun control advocates still push it. You know what IS a solution? Focusing on and fixing the causes of violence and crime.

 

Except for the fact that it works in other country's.

 

Gun control is not a solution?

And how did you arrive at that conclusion?

 

With the same metric as the U.S? I bet not!!

 

Have you took the time to look into the measures on the books already to control what type and who can own and posses a firearm currently..

 

And those countries still have a violence problem. The violence does not go away just because you took an object away. Again, look at the UK. They've worked their way in banning knives all the way to the point that they have judges advocating that all pointed knives, even kitchen knives with points, be banned.

 

Why?

Let's just take the last year of mass shootings? How many of those stories contain the line (or something similar) "The shooter legally obtained the firearms...."

 

Answer the questions..

 

Violence is never going to "go away" and I am not suggesting that we try to create laws to get rid of "violence"

But despite there still being violence in the UK, when is the last time there was a violent incident where at least 10 people were injured? How many times a year do they have such incidents? When is the last time they had such an incident in a school?

 

LOL.

 

Guns are objects. They do not cause violence. It is literally impossible for an object to cause violence. You can get rid of all the guns in the world, and there will still be violence. History shows that.

You know what does cause violence? Lack of education. Poverty. Mental illnesses. Unstable homes. And many other factors. You can look at any study and not a single one done by serious researchers will show that guns cause violence. For example: LINK: Violence | Causes, Effects & Solutions | Britannica

 

Accept you know darn well if the shooter was a white supremacist it would be plastered all over the place.

 

At the very least a mural!

 

You're right, violence is no doubt never going to go away. But it CAN be reduced. All without once targeting objects. And when you compare the amount of defensive gun uses vs those times guns are used in violent crimes...guess which one comes out on top? I'll be going for that one.





So why aren't you advocating for reducing violence? Why focus on objects that don't cause violence...but certainly helps against it.

 

You are trying to make the point that its easier to kill more people with a semi-auto rifle than with a pump shotgun. While often true, its also often not true. That's why the pump shotgun is still commonly used in combat by virtually every military on the planet even though semi-auto rifles have existed almost as long as pump shotguns have. They have different tactical uses in different situations.

But that point you're trying to make isn't the point that matters. Even if it could be objectively demonstrated that a semi-auto rifle is 'more lethal' than a pump shotgun, that would not have an objective meaning in the gun control debate. Machine guns, for example, are often considered 'more lethal' than semi-auto rifles, so we banned machine guns. Now you want to ban semi-auto rifles because they are considered 'more lethal' than pump action shotguns. If we ban semi-auto rifles, will you be contented that we're 'safe enough' and no longer want to ban the next 'most lethal firearm'? Of course you won't. You'll jump on the bandwagon to ban the next 'most lethal' firearm you're told is 'too dangerous' by people who either don't know what they're talking about, or are counting on you to not know what they're talking about. So instead of arguing over which firearm is the 'most lethal', how about you explain to me how banning semi-auto rifles is going to make anyone safer, given the plethora of other firearms that exist, that while maybe not 'as lethal', are still plenty lethal, and how this crusade against 'the most currently lethal firearm' doesn't innevitably result in the restriction of ALL LETHAL FIREARMS (which of course is just all firearms).

 

Once again COMPLETELY sidestepping the point.

We are the only country with this issue concerning firearms...Why?
If other countries can have a much lower rate of firearm violence then why can't we? Do they have some secret they aren't sharing with us?

 

And you said it in your first paragraph?
Do you not read what YOU type?

"They have different tactical uses in different situations"

Absolutely 100% true.

What are those situations that make a shotgun a better weapon than a semi automatic weapon?

When is a civilian going to commonly find themselves in a situation that favors a semi automatic over a shotgun?

When we reach a level of gun deaths on par with that of other industrialized nations then, at least, we will have done enough