Gun Control

[Scratchtown]

Well, it'd be a lot easier to take this stuff more seriously if it didn't come with the likes of

 

 

 

 

If Salon magazine and other progressive rags had it their way, the law abiding gun owner wouldn’t have had a weapon on him at all – unlike Thompson, because criminals don’t give a damn about laws.

 

 

Why do you think no major media outlets are reporting it coach?

 

I'm unsure of your point. Do you think it didn't happen?

 

In any case. I hate main stream media, always have. If I had to pick a favorite it would probably be CNN. Fox is ridiculously obnoxious even though I align more with their beliefs.

 

When it comes to mainstream media I'm sold on the fact that they are bought out by lobbyists and report based on an agenda. In this case, this story does nothing but hurt gun control motives.

[knapplc]

Fox is against gun control legislation. Are they covering this story?

[Scratchtown]

Fox is against gun control legislation. Are they covering this story?

Nope.

[Landlord]

Of course it happened. That guy is a hero. But the 'article' doesn't do as much reporting as it does trying to be propaganda pushing an opinion.

 

I don't trust, but I also don't waste any of my time with, any news organization that relies on advertising dollars.

[Enhance]

 

Well, it'd be a lot easier to take this stuff more seriously if it didn't come with the likes of

 

 

 

 

If Salon magazine and other progressive rags had it their way, the law abiding gun owner wouldn’t have had a weapon on him at all – unlike Thompson, because criminals don’t give a damn about laws.

 

 

Why do you think no major media outlets are reporting it coach?

 

I'm unsure of your point. Do you think it didn't happen?

 

In any case. I hate main stream media, always have. If I had to pick a favorite it would probably be CNN. Fox is ridiculously obnoxious even though I align more with their beliefs.

 

When it comes to mainstream media I'm sold on the fact that they are bought out by lobbyists and report based on an agenda. In this case, this story does nothing but hurt gun control motives.

 

No, I think his problem is that the particular article you linked is subjective journalism. The facts are there, but then the opinion is inserted in as well.

 

Personally, I never read websites or articles like that whether they're conservative or liberal.

[Scratchtown]

Of course it happened. That guy is a hero. But the 'article' doesn't do as much reporting as it does trying to be propaganda pushing an opinion.

 

I don't trust, but I also don't waste any of my time with, any news organization that relies on advertising dollars.

 

 

 

 

Well, it'd be a lot easier to take this stuff more seriously if it didn't come with the likes of

 

 

 

 

If Salon magazine and other progressive rags had it their way, the law abiding gun owner wouldn’t have had a weapon on him at all – unlike Thompson, because criminals don’t give a damn about laws.

 

 

Why do you think no major media outlets are reporting it coach?

 

I'm unsure of your point. Do you think it didn't happen?

 

In any case. I hate main stream media, always have. If I had to pick a favorite it would probably be CNN. Fox is ridiculously obnoxious even though I align more with their beliefs.

 

When it comes to mainstream media I'm sold on the fact that they are bought out by lobbyists and report based on an agenda. In this case, this story does nothing but hurt gun control motives.

 

No, I think his problem is that the particular article you linked is subjective journalism. The facts are there, but then the opinion is inserted in as well.

 

Personally, I never read websites or articles like that whether they're conservative or liberal.

 

 

I don't either. In all honesty. But a story like this with the gun control topic always being thrown around, I don't think it hurts to see these stories. If this is the only avenue reporting, so be it.

 

More people need to see this kind of stuff and realize that when we leave it in cops hands, more innocent people would have been shot while the cops were on the way. Unless we lived in a police state. Which no one wants, and rightfully so.

[Landlord]

More people need to see this kind of stuff and realize that when we leave it in cops hands, more innocent people would have been shot while the cops were on the way. Unless we lived in a police state. Which no one wants, and rightfully so.

 

 

Most people see a story like this and think it's great that he was there, and men like him are great examples of good, responsible gun ownership. Most people don't have any interest in men like him not being able to own guns.

[Enhance]

 

Of course it happened. That guy is a hero. But the 'article' doesn't do as much reporting as it does trying to be propaganda pushing an opinion.

 

I don't trust, but I also don't waste any of my time with, any news organization that relies on advertising dollars.

 

 

 

 

Well, it'd be a lot easier to take this stuff more seriously if it didn't come with the likes of

 

 

 

 

If Salon magazine and other progressive rags had it their way, the law abiding gun owner wouldn’t have had a weapon on him at all – unlike Thompson, because criminals don’t give a damn about laws.

 

 

Why do you think no major media outlets are reporting it coach?

 

I'm unsure of your point. Do you think it didn't happen?

 

In any case. I hate main stream media, always have. If I had to pick a favorite it would probably be CNN. Fox is ridiculously obnoxious even though I align more with their beliefs.

 

When it comes to mainstream media I'm sold on the fact that they are bought out by lobbyists and report based on an agenda. In this case, this story does nothing but hurt gun control motives.

 

No, I think his problem is that the particular article you linked is subjective journalism. The facts are there, but then the opinion is inserted in as well.

 

Personally, I never read websites or articles like that whether they're conservative or liberal.

 

I don't either. In all honesty. But a story like this with the gun control topic always being thrown around, I don't think it hurts to see these stories. If this is the only avenue reporting, so be it.

 

More people need to see this kind of stuff and realize that when we leave it in cops hands, more innocent people would have been shot while the cops were on the way. Unless we lived in a police state. Which no one wants, and rightfully so.

 

Well, technically, the other avenue for reporting was to read the actual news report from the local journalists. The Washington Times also did an article.

 

Furthermore, I noticed the article you posted did not once mention the fact that the alleged shooter was carrying an illegal weapon , which is another important issue in the gun debate that should be discussed.

 

Some people will criticize the president for jumping on his gun control train every time there's a mass shooting, but this is almost equally ridiculous. We don't yet know what this man's motives were or if he was firing at specific people in the crowd. All we know is he fired into a crowd after an argument. Perhaps he was attempting to hit the man he was arguing with? Does that really count as a potential "mass shooting?" None of the victims suffered life threatening injuries either, which either means he has horrendous aim or wasn't aiming at them.

 

And that's why those types of articles are worthless.

[JJ Husker]

I noticed talk 9f gun control creeping into the Dallas events today. Just a casual observation....

 

When a black guy shoots white police officers- Guns are part of the problem.

 

When a Muslim terrorist shoots people- Guns are a problem.

 

Almost every situation where someone uses a gun- Guns are the problem.

 

But, when a police officer shoots a black guy- it's racism and police brutality and everything except the guns fault.

 

Why the double standard? Seems like it should always be one or the other, the person or the object for a person to be consistent. The head of the NAACP today was blaming guns for the black shooter in Dallas but blaming race problems for the Minnesota thing. Just caught my attention I guess.

[zoogs]

Police should have guns.

[JJ Husker]

Police should have guns.

That is a very good point and would explain much about the disparate comments. Sorry, my head wasn't really in that post. I was doing three too many things at the time.

[cm husker]

I noticed talk 9f gun control creeping into the Dallas events today. Just a casual observation....

 

When a black guy shoots white police officers- Guns are part of the problem.

 

When a Muslim terrorist shoots people- Guns are a problem.

 

Almost every situation where someone uses a gun- Guns are the problem.

 

But, when a police officer shoots a black guy- it's racism and police brutality and everything except the guns fault.

 

Why the double standard? Seems like it should always be one or the other, the person or the object for a person to be consistent. The head of the NAACP today was blaming guns for the black shooter in Dallas but blaming race problems for the Minnesota thing. Just caught my attention I guess.

Of course it's not a double standard.

 

A double standard is no outrage from gun nuts that a guy with a license for a gun was shot by police when trying to present said license upon request.

 

no one says we should restrict a police officer in carrying a weapon. We just ask that they exercise that responsibility, at the very least, non-negligently.

[NM11046]

So quick question to those who think that by civilians carrying guns we lesson the chance of attacks (because when a gunman tries to rob, or attack there would be a bystander with concealed carry who could stop the event).

 

In Texas, where gun ownership is high (I think the last official stat I saw, and it was 2 or 3 years old said 37% of people in the state owned a gun, and I'm assuming based on politics, the color of the state overall and our current debates that this number has gone up significantly). How can one explain how Dallas happened? Statistically there were a significant number in the crowd who were carrying.

 

This is not a trolling question, I'm sincerely interested in how this argument makes sense to some.

[BIGREDIOWAN]

So quick question to those who think that by civilians carrying guns we lesson the chance of attacks (because when a gunman tries to rob, or attack there would be a bystander with concealed carry who could stop the event).

 

In Texas, where gun ownership is high (I think the last official stat I saw, and it was 2 or 3 years old said 37% of people in the state owned a gun, and I'm assuming based on politics, the color of the state overall and our current debates that this number has gone up significantly). How can one explain how Dallas happened? Statistically there were a significant number in the crowd who were carrying.

 

This is not a trolling question, I'm sincerely interested in how this argument makes sense to some.

The trouble with the Dallas shooting is I don't think anyone knew where this guy was shooting from initially. The sound of the gunfire was bouncing off of all the buildings and nevermind facing a rifle with a pistol is a real bad situation to be in, but it can obviously be done. People also reported that he was initially fighting from the position of advantage, elevation. Rifle, elevation, unknown location, means find cover or run your a$$ off real quick and get out of there. Talk about a GIANT **** sandwich to take a bite out of if you're responding to that.

 

My main guess is the people that showed up to protest aren't the type to carry firearms based on their beliefs and feelings so there probably wasn't a huge number there that even had a weapon on them IMO.

[AFhusker]

So quick question to those who think that by civilians carrying guns we lesson the chance of attacks (because when a gunman tries to rob, or attack there would be a bystander with concealed carry who could stop the event).

 

In Texas, where gun ownership is high (I think the last official stat I saw, and it was 2 or 3 years old said 37% of people in the state owned a gun, and I'm assuming based on politics, the color of the state overall and our current debates that this number has gone up significantly). How can one explain how Dallas happened? Statistically there were a significant number in the crowd who were carrying.

 

This is not a trolling question, I'm sincerely interested in how this argument makes sense to some.

That is simple, you had an evil military trained racist who ambushed people from a parking garage. With the acoustics with all of the tall buildings nobody could figure out where he was firing from. Not to mention he was running between several points to shoot from to make it seem like there were more than one shooter. Which is something that he looked up online.

 

More laws don't help because all you have to do is look at San Bernardino once again two days ago. But it just involved black men, so the national media doesn't cover it because it doesn't portray it's pathetic agenda. And California is one of the most liberal states in the country and has the strictest gun laws in the country. The pathetic part is the grandstanding that the Dem's did in the Senate over gun control to blame this on the Republicans. Well, if they cared so much about the issue why didn't they pass anything in 2008-2009 when they had the 60 votes in the Senate and a Democratic President? Of course they don't want the focus on that, so they want to grandstand to make it look like they care about an issue during an election year so they can get reelected and continue to do nothing.

 

Here's the article about the senseless San Bernardino shootings, very sad that it was likely a gang related shooting that took two innocent lives including a 9 year old boy. If you read the article, I can't imagine the pain that mother went through.

 

 

9-year old boy, father killed in triple shooting in San Bernardino

 

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-san-bernardino-child-shooting-20160709-snap-story.html