Would the right support studies (by the CDC or otherwise) into causes and mitigation strategies for gun violence? Because arguing is all well and good, but since considering other countries is apparently off the table, nobody has anything but ideology to back themselves up.
Even though Harold will sign up later to post it: 'Doug-las! Doug-las! Doug-las!'
Imagine this being called in:
"Reports of shots fired in Pulse nightclub"
"Oh, did someone say Louboutins are out of fashion?"
"Haha, meow!"
"Hellllooooo!"
"I'll transfer you to the fashion police over"
Some Somali bloke has opened fire in a Texan Walmart and has taken hostages.
I hope he bought the gun there and then. Should be a test for the armed vigilante theory.
What sort of creative accounting has been applied for that seventeen a year figure? It's over a thousand in the last five years.
Did this shit happen all that much pre-Columbine? Other than Waco I can't really remember anything of the sort, and that was more just a lunatic siege.
Maybe it wasn't reported as much?
But according to seven it's never reported at all.
Yeah, looking at it, apparently it did happen, although perhaps with less regularity and the death counts were usually lower. Still a few big ones in 1984 and 1991.
Peak of mass shootings in the US was in the 1920s, US is actually experiencing the lowest levels of crime in recorded history at present.Originally Posted by niko_cee
0 deaths, 0 injuries; the Texas difference.
I bet they happened more frequently in the good old days of the wild west.
They didn't even need to get the police involved or anything.
There was a big spike in gun violence in Europe during the early-mid forties, not sure why.
Pretty sure it was all those refugees.
They should have held a referendum.
That gif is mesmerising.
They look to have stretched the "active shooter" definition a bit with this one.
Someone put John McCain to sleep ffs.
http://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/...E-81ECF4F608AD
John McCain is one of the most alright Republicans going.
Are you just going to keep spouting this without ever addressing the many exceptions to this rule you seem to have invented? There was a time in the not too distant past when the worst mass shooting in US history was in Texas, and it was still the worst to have happened outside a school until that wanker the other day. Waco probably couldn't have happened anywhere but Texas. You also mentioned without evidence the other day that shootings don't happen at Texas churches, then ignored when mentioned that Texas also had the worst church shooting until Dylan Roof.
What?
He withdrew troops from the Middle East, so an American born citizen decided to murder some gays. Couldn't be any more straightforward.
And he didn't particularly withdraw them either. There's still fucking loads of them over there.
Yes, but he has GUTTED the military! Moar bombs!
How much time did it take you to research all that, be honest
Suddenly knowing what you're talking about is something to be scoffed at.How much time did it take you to research all that, be honest
Maybe three minutes total, and that's being generous for the amount of time it took me to Google 'church shooting Ashbrook' to find the full name of the guy I remembered being mentioned when Roof went nuts.
Now, how about you address what was said.
Johnny John John, self-proclaimed poster extraordinaire and fountain of hilarity, still determined to out Mert's bullshit. Oh you young summer child
I mean what's your point, that gun crime also occurs in Texas, in particular on a few occasions 15+ years ago? Okay? I'm not sure what you think you've proven?
Bloody hell
Shoot them.
Yes but Republican's are still the ones responsible for Congressional gridlock, right? Sorry they refuse to pass clearly unconstitutional legislation, but the headlines well play will to the uninformed base so who cares...
What did you think of them changing the fiduciary (sp?) rule, mert?
Surely that's promoting malpractice?
A trump supporter whining about the 'uninformed base'.
I read today that those wankers have voted down 100+ bills in the last five years aimed at tightening gun laws. At a time when money in politics is a big issue, that nothing can be done about this despite a huge majority of Americans wanting it, highlights quite nicely how bought their politicians are. The Democrats have not been left with much choice and fairplay to them for going in.
The majority of Americans do not want more 'gun regulation' (whatever that means), what nonsense are you talking about? Support for gun rights are equal or higher among millenials (who often get even more conservative as they get older) over older generations and in general the most popular its been in decades*. And anyways, gun regulations are largely left to state legislatures anyways under their police powers, Congress is pretty limited in its enumerated powers to constitutionally act on the subject anyways.A trump supporter whining about the 'uninformed base'.
I read today that those wankers have voted down 100+ bills in the last five years aimed at tightening gun laws. At a time when money in politics is a big issue, that nothing can be done about this despite a huge majority of Americans wanting it, highlights quite nicely how bought their politicians are. The Democrats have not been left with much choice and fairplay to them for going in.
*http://www.people-press.org/2014/12/...or-gun-rights/ and http://www.cato.org/blog/millennials...ve-gun-control
Trump supporters are better educated and earn more than Clinton supporters you ignorant idiot:
http://qz.com/679589/trump-voters-ea...ical-american/
Just so fucking wrong, how do you confidently state opinions when you are utterly and exhaustively uninformed? What sort of disease is liberalism where 'how I feel about the subject' is somehow akin to a legitimate opinion in any way related to reality?
The proposals Obama proposed earlier in the year were overwhelmingly backed, even amongst NRA members. Unfortunately the money the latter provides mean the argument is often seen as 50/50.
Clinton supporters are fucking drones. Trump's whole movement has been built on winning over fucking idiots.
Anyone can also grab a weblink and state it as fact or to support their argument...like you do.
For example one of your links dates back to 2014. This link is more recent (haven't read it all)
http://uk.businessinsider.com/r-poll...un-laws-2016-1
Okay I know you keep saying "Trump's whole movement has been built over winning over idiots" but even though emotionally you REALLY BELIEVE this is true, the facts point in the opposite direction. Do you get that? What you 'feel' doesn't supersede the reality that Trump supporters are more educated and more financially successful than Hillary supporters (who by extension are bigger idiots).
Are you capable of revising your opinion when confronted with facts or are you not at this basic level of maturity / intelligence?
One poll versus analysis of decades of polling trends. It's not an argument. It is a widely accepted truth that Americans of all ages are increasingly in favor of gun rights to the deeply satisfying chagrin and mystification of the "liberalism is the inevitable end point of societies!" crowd.
I've been following the election closely from the start. His rallies resembles fascist gatherings, and his policies are such that only ignorant, easy-solution-seeking wankers are going to be drawn to supporting him. Are you really arguing this, given you normally spend your time on here confirming everything I've said. Post another vaguely homoerotic endorse of your messiah.
It's hardly a secret is it.
The right often jump to the 'they're coming for our guns!' argument as a way to energise their base, as in most issues. The reality, which is tightening laws to close some stunningly stupid and dangerous loopholes, while not touching the rights of law-abiding gun owners, isn't scary, but would cost the companies the NRA represents money, and thus must be avoided.
I think the latest polling post-Orlando had 61% in favour of banning the sale of assault weapons, for example. On the issue of the no-fly list and the background check loophole, past surveys have higher percentages still.
Okay. I'll try one more time.
I know what you described is how you feel about Trump supporters. However, how you feel is contradicted by the fact that they are MORE EDUCATED AND WEALTHIER than Hillary supporters. Ergo, they can't be more stupid now can they?
A normal mature human being, when confronted with facts that contradict his feelings, revise his feelings to reflect the facts. You are wrong. Period. You can say 'lol Trump supporters are ignorant, idiot fascists!!!' but the reality is that means Hillary supporters are more ignorant and stupid than his.
What confuses me about that source you linked was that every candidate had supporters with a median household income higher than the US average. Am I missing something?
1. Let's see where polling is a few months from now; and out of curiosity what is an assault weapon? Are you aware that 'assault weapons' are only actually responsible for a minuscule of the actual violence / crime caused by guns, here is an article to educate yourself, it is an entirely empty political proposal*
2. The no-fly list regulation is 1. Unconstitutional violation of Due Process clause; 2. Would alert suspected terrorists that they are under investigation
3. There is no 'background check' loop hole; google it
4. 1 + 3 are the purview of state legislatures anyways under separation of powers
*http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/su...myth.html?_r=0
And Trump's is higher than Bernie's or Hillary's. Time to work on that reading comprehension buddy.
"The median household income of a Trump voter so far in the primaries is about $72,000... higher than the median income for Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders supporters, which is around $61,000 for both."
That's not what I asked at all. I wasn't refuting your point (lol at the idea of getting involved in this debate), merely curious as to how the median income of every candidate can be higher than the US median.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote