My newsfeed is obv much, much faster than yours, with many more details. I make no apologies for that. Legacy media is dead.
Car vs Gun as a tool of crime
- both require some level of training (or should be*) before you're allowed to use one
* or should be - I dunno - state laws may vary. Here in Canada, they do not.
Also ignoring the bulk of what you said.
But taking the moment to note that you just said that gun control laws work where they are implemented.
Also noting that your far superior newsfeed seems to have missed the fact that there is a gigantic lobby here that says "NO" to any kind of law - in fact they pass laws saying that authorities 'shall issue' for permits to people who have no training, experience, or background check.
...Focusing on gun control and banning weapons that get the excitable masses excited, will serve no effective purpose. Do it, and these sad crimes will continue, along with a litany of excuses why banning of a type of gun must have had an effect. Nostradamus, I'm not. Don't need to be.
Gov. Greg Abbott said Wednesday that the Uvalde school shooter had a "mental health challenge" and the state needed to "do a better job with mental health" â yet in April he slashed $211 million from the department that oversees mental health programs.
The argument that there are devices other than guns that can be used, and have been used, to kill multiple persons as evidence that guns are not a significant part of the problem is a bit of a red herring. There are reasons guns are by far the weapon of choice. I would not assume the prevalence of mass murders would remain anywhere near the same if guns were not as readily available.
The red herring is focussing in on any one weapon of choice in these mass killings. Remove that choice from the available options and other weapons will be used. For example, you need look no further than the prevalence of knife crimes around the world, where guns are highly restricted.
Gun control advocates don't get it. They're being manipulated by dishonest politicians, who in turn influence gun control advocates, who influence dishonest politicians. See how that works?
All of this is a great sea of red herring.
What should be focussed on is the mental health state and motivations of the mass killers, not their weapon of choice. So many don't understand this.
Focussing on gun control and banning weapons that get the excitable masses excited, will serve no effective purpose. Do it, and these sad crimes will continue, along with a litany of excuses why banning of a type of gun must have had an effect. Nostradamus, I'm not. Don't need to be.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
May 8, 2023 - 9:39am
The argument that there are devices other than guns that can be used, and have been used, to kill multiple persons as evidence that guns are not a significant part of the problem is a bit of a red herring. There are reasons guns are by far the weapon of choice. I would not assume the prevalence of mass murders would remain anywhere near the same if guns were not as readily available.
Based on direct experience and observation, I can say with certainty, that many beauticians (we call them hairstylists) need their certificates revoked.
Investing in health care, and better education are a start...but I believe the hurdles to becoming a beautician are higher than for gun ownership. Then again, beauticians do have scissors.
Based on direct experience and observation, I can say with certainty, that many beauticians (we call them hairstylists) need their certificates revoked.
Investing in health care, and better education are a start...but I believe the hurdles to becoming a beautician are higher than for gun ownership. Then again, beauticians do have scissors.
good point. har har.
(i was thinking notaries, too. just because of what i've recently had to do as far as jumping through hoops, classes, exams etc.)
The similarities? They both happened in Texas? They both happened this weekend? Both perpetrators were wearing socks from Costco? Anything but the guns, right?
So you saw the pictures (of piles of dead children) and still the only thing you could think of was to post a distraction and try and make some tangential point with it? As I said, I doubt would have any impact on you until it gets personal.
Oh, so you did a deep dive and figured out how this has nothing to do with the prevalence of guns in our society? Was the mall a gun free zone, or did one of the proprietors post something inclusive woke on social media, thus deserving the violence perpetrated on them? Was the shooter a member of a minority group you don't understand? Whatever, I'm sure it will be found relevant by those who share your worldview.
My newsfeed is obv much, much faster than yours, with many more details. I make no apologies for that. Legacy media is dead.
Ignoring the bulk of your word salad â
Here's the parallels for those that can't see them:
Car vs Gun as a tool of crime
- both require some level of training (or should be*) before you're allowed to use one
- both have a minimum age before you're allowed (or should be) to buy one
- both are used by millions of other licensed users, safely, and every single day
- both require deliberate misuse or inattention to cause harm
Yet no one calls for the banning or restricting of ownership of cars. Oh wait, yes the climate change gang wants that.
- the reference to ban Land Rovers is of course to parallel the anti-gun zealots focus on the AR-15-type.
* or should be - I dunno - state laws may vary. Here in Canada, they do not.
No one here will change the mind of any anti-gun zealots. Because zealots. Immune to logic and reason - no different than any other extremist, be they left or right. Doesn't mean I or anyone here is pro-gun, it's about rights as laid out in laws.
Speaking of laws, so much of this carnage might actually be prevented if some laws were actually enforced/expanded - such as mental health supports. There's an entire array of issues that are there re mental health, that also may impose on civil rights, but no one talks about that. Because banning guns is so much more dramatic.
I have yet to hear an anti-gun advocate admit that criminals or those set out on destruction fully adhere to all laws regarding gun ownership, acquisition or possession. Because, OMG, cognitive dissonance overload!
islander wrote:
Not my hall to monitor. If it were, you would still be banned. Still my right to call you on your BS should it become deep enough. Clutch your pearls and feign indignity all you want.
Still my right to mock your hysterics, double standards and cognitive dissonance. Smarter folks understand that is what we call inherent bias.
You wouldn't do well on Twitter. Your block list would be infinitely higher than your follows. Echo chambers are like that.
But go ahead, clutch your pearls and feign outrage all you want. Meanwhile, others grow, learn, and adjust their beliefs.
Read the thread. There's no easy solution here, in spite of what the gun-ban happy advocates think/ bunk they're being sold.
Investing in health care, and better education are a start...but I believe the hurdles to becoming a beautician are higher than for gun ownership. Then again, beauticians do have scissors.
The post was meant to make the reader think about the similarities of the comparison. Obv you missed that.
And fyi - I have seen the uncensored pics of the shooting at the outlet mall, both of the pile of kids and the shooter - and already read the pull quotes you chose. Obv those pics are nothing that belongs here. And I've also read some background info on both the location and the shooter that hasn't made it here yet, though will no doubt be seen as relevant to those who choose to follow more on that particular shooting.
Happy now? Did I meet your prerequisite, hall monitor?
The similarities? They both happened in Texas? They both happened this weekend? Both perpetrators were wearing socks from Costco? Anything but the guns, right?
So you saw the pictures (of piles of dead children) and still the only thing you could think of was to post a distraction and try and make some tangential point with it? As I said, I doubt would have any impact on you until it gets personal.
Oh, so you did a deep dive and figured out how this has nothing to do with the prevalence of guns in our society? Was the mall a gun free zone, or did one of the proprietors post something inclusive woke on social media, thus deserving the violence perpetrated on them? Was the shooter a member of a minority group you don't understand? Whatever, I'm sure it will be found relevant by those who share your worldview.
Not my hall to monitor. If it were, you would still be banned. Still my right to call you on your BS should it become deep enough. Clutch your pearls and feign indignity all you want.
Personally, I think you should have to look at a picture of a dead child before you post your nonsense. Not that I think it would affect you, but maybe, just maybe as it continues to spread you might worry about one of these tragedies impacting you personally. That's something that I'm pretty sure would motivate you to consider the horrific impacts.
OFFS. Nice high horse you have there.
The post was meant to make the reader think about the similarities of the comparison. Obv you missed that.
And fyi - I have seen the uncensored pics of the shooting at the outlet mall, both of the pile of kids and the shooter - and already read the pull quotes you chose. Obv those pics are nothing that belongs here. And I've also read some background info on both the location and the shooter that hasn't made it here yet, though will no doubt be seen as relevant to those who choose to follow more on that particular shooting.
Happy now? Did I meet your prerequisite, hall monitor?
