I figured it was, but they see no irony, even when you beat them over the head with it. Perhaps if you pointed out the killing of trees or animals for food they might raise a big fuss, but babies??? Nada…
If it’s free it would be a handout. Are you OK with handouts?
Banning Smoking in many areas has really been a positive imo.
Banning Assault Rifles is a must
When the war between the States happen they will be handing out Assault Rifles like Free Cheese
So they would even have to subsidize their revolution. LOL. Welfare queens.
It seems they cannot accept their role in creating the conditions that leading up to these mass shootings.
How about no more guns in movies, TV or the internet? Murder and killings are banned all together.
There is no study that shows violence in TV or video games leads to violence, so I don’t think that makes much sense.
1 Like
Now you’re making it a hand out like like Democrats and free Healthcare for illegals.
They weren’t going around killing bunch of people when the Walton’s were playing. Why was that?
They weren’t killing people when Monopoly was popular…why was that?
We have this great thing called the Second Amendment so no they won’t need to hand them out like other countries would have to.
Denying guns to those convicted of violent misdemeanors (mostly domestic violence perpetrators) has been shown to lower gun murders and has no impact on law abiding gun owners.
Can you agree to that?
I think all of america bears the responsibility for creating the conditions in which mass shootings happen nearly every day in america.
but it’s important to recognize that the incredible amount of guns and the ease with which we can purchase them is part of those conditions.
And more important if we are looking for solutions - what is more direct, and easy to accomplish? Charing our culture, moving away from a headline driven, 24/7 news media for profit sensationalist society, or making it harder for bad people to get guns?
And, from a conservative perspective, which is more ideologically proper? legislating movie, internet and game content, mandating new media formats and content, legislating ‘societal changes’ whatever that might entail, or legislating policy that effects one product?
This is a serious question and I hope you give it real thought. We are where we are in america. Moving forward, if the goal is fewer gun deaths, should we use the force of the government to attempt to change society or should we write policy that effects one product?
I think you finally got the point. Congratulations.
If you chart gun violence against the rise of for profit new media, and the shift of focus of the NRA away from gun control (yes, the NRA used to favor gun control legislation) and toward lobbying efforts, I think you have part of the answer.
Just part though…it’s a complicated thing to be sure, but those two things IMO are significant.
Convicts are already denied Guns through back ground checks we already have.
1 Like
Video games and mental health were the scapegoat used when I sat in lock down at school (in the same district) just 20 minutes away when Michael Carneal shot and killed 3 of his classmates at Heath High School.
20 years later, and we’re still blaming video games and mental health without anyone offering a tangible, evidence-based solution.
Once again in 1964 there was 191 million people with about 180 million guns. In 2017 there was something like 329 million people with 300/320 million guns.
Household had something like 47 percent with a gun…today it’s 43.
In 1964 gun safes was hardly hear of…today millions of guns safes in in place.
1964 their was no background check…today their is one.
So what changed? It seems libs can’t accept their role of social breakdown.
Why?
2 Likes
I literally just said all of america is to blame for the condition we are in…
