putting it into numbers

[YukonGlocker]

The problem with the original post regarding the number of "mass shootings" is that it is misleading and purposely done so to promote the liberal agenda and bed soaking wet-dream of "gun control". Here is a counter from National Review ...

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/427985/media-mass-shootings-count-misleading

Thanks for the enlightenment. I'll just copy and paste your post here and send it out to clear up all the confusion about gun control. Thanks gawd we won't have to debate this **** with anyone any longer.

 

[dennishoddy]

The problem with the original post regarding the number of "mass shootings" is that it is misleading and purposely done so to promote the liberal agenda and bed soaking wet-dream of "gun control". Here is a counter from National Review ...

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/427985/media-mass-shootings-count-misleading

Now I understand why the liberal outlet news readers have been spouting off these numbers with shocked looks......

 

[6 Strings]

in case you're a data person

"the data show that this type of incident already is normal. There have been more mass shootings than calendar days so far this year."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-is-the-second-today-and-the-355th-this-year/

For those that actually look at data they should be able to do some honest research ... instead of mindlessly believing the liberal talking points being massaged by the Washington Post.

Thanks for the enlightenment. I'll just copy and paste your post here and send it out to clear up all the confusion about gun control. Thanks gawd we won't have to debate this **** with anyone any longer.

You are most certainly welcome. Since you don’t seem to be a “data person”, I am happy to help you.

 

[pritch]

I hate to break it to you, but absolutely nothing you can ever do on the subject will impact how SCOTUS rules on the 2nd Amendment.

That is just wrong. We still get a say as to who sits in the Oval Office, and the type of judicial appointments a candidate will make is a critical component of evaluating their worthiness.


The core obstacle here is that the Left sees us as the enemy, not merely political rivals that have a different opinion of what is best for the country. With that being the case, it is not possible to go to the bargaining table to seek a solution. They cannot be trusted. Their objective is our defeat, or better yet, destruction - not solving gun violence.

 

[YukonGlocker]

...Since you don’t seem to be a “data person”, I am happy to help you.

If you've actually read the entire thread, it should be obvious that I'm not siding with most of those viewpoints/datapoints. Nice way to passively attack me personally, tho'. I'll bet you a year's salary that I'm more of a "data person" than you think. Willing to put your money where your mouth is?

 

[Dale00]

The following article works to refute your assertion that there is sufficient impetus for new restrictive gun regulations.

The Tide Is Turning Against Democrats in the Debate Over Gun Control
Kurt Schlichter, Los Angeles, CA

This is what it looks like when the tide is turning.

You have the New York Times putting its foot down. They stuck an op-ed telling us (contrary to the hitherto party line) that they do, in fact, want to take our guns. You see, some Muslim radicals shouting about Allah murdered a bunch of citizens who, as California’s genius lawmakers intended, were utterly defenseless. Naturally, we have to take steps to further ensure that our citizens are even more defenseless in the future.

Nah, that’s not going to happen. Media stompy foot is not a sign of strength; it’s a pathetic confession of weakness. We reached a tipping point last week as the facts poured in about the latest gun-free zone massacre. Yes, our thoughts and prayers are with the devastated liberals who must once again face the terrible truth that the killers were not Judeo-Christian, conservative, card-carrying members of the Tea Party and the NRA. Instead, at least one of them was exactly the kind of person that Obama was virtue signaling about post-Paris, a Muslim woman immigrant who was closely vetted by the super-competent pros in his administration. Just don’t pay any attention to that Facebook pledge of allegiance to ISIS behind the curtain; it complicated the workplace violence narrative.

In fact, it complicated the narrative so much that even Obama had to rouse himself from his listless stupor and go on TV and speak. You could see how much he hated having to take time away from his enfascistment program to talk to us yokels about defending our country. How bad do you think the Democrat agenda of cowering, cowardice, and confiscation has got to be polling to get him off the links and doing his job?

Anecdotes mean nothing, until they start meaning everything.

Exhibit A: A beauty shop in the ritzy South Bay of Los Angeles. The hairdresser spontaneously launches into a tirade about Obama and how people in gun free zones are sitting ducks for Islamist freaks.

A hairdresser. In Los Angeles.

Exhibit B: A Headline News studio audience in Hollywood. A black man is handed the microphone and says he agrees with the one gun freedom activist on the panel. A young woman stands up and asks why she should be left defenseless in the face of terrorists.

Minorities and Millennials. In Hollywood.

Exhibit C: Thousands of store shelves across America, stripped of ammunition.

Exhibit D: The instant background check system last weekend, not so very instant as demand overwhelmed it.

Exhibit E: Twitter swamped with screenshots of NRA membership confirmation emails.

Exhibit F: Hillary Clinton shutting up about the pseudo-threat of guns in the hands of normal Americans and proceeding to channel Julius Caesar about killing terrorists.

This is what it looks like when the tide is turning.

Obama’s lies didn’t help. You could see the FBI agents biting their lips, clearly under orders not to leap to any conclusions about the mysterious, unknowable motivation that propelled the Muslim, Allah-shouting, bomb-making, kid-dumping, ISIS-worshipping killers. Everyone saw that the fools masquerading as our leaders were twisting themselves into yogi-like contortions not to acknowledge what everyone knows – what even the murderers themselves were proud to admit. Because to say it, to acknowledge the truth, would force Obama and his liberal pals to take their focus off fundamentally transforming America via climate change conferences and onto protecting it from the kind of Third World radical freaks these multi-culti jerks slobber over.

Progressives hate taking our side in a fight because they believe at some foundational level that the slaughter these Seventh Century cretins have brought to our shores is well-deserved, the natural consequence of our selfish refusal to submit to the elite’s agenda of craven appeasement and collective guilt. Law-abiding gun owners? You’re the real terrorists. A Jew who dared argue with a Muslim? Well, the New York Daily News says he was asking for it.

If only we would give up our freedoms, prosperity, and self-determination, we might stop deserving this. This isn’t the fault of the Islamofascist killers; it’s ours, somehow. John Kerry let that slip regarding Charlie Hebdo – those Frenchmen exercised free speech about Mohammed and therefore he could totally understand why some jihadis showed up with AKs. And his attorney general immediately pipes up to threaten to prosecute people who speak out about Islamist murderers.

Everyone sees that Obama and his minions not only cannot protect us, but that they will actively seek to stop us from doing it ourselves.

Everyone sees that Obama is simply trying to not let this crisis go to waste by stripping real Americans of their ability to protect themselves from Islamist murderers – and from his fascist dreams.

Everyone sees that we are on our own.

Bill Clinton definitely gets it; for all his myriad faults, he knows Americans and he knows “Give me your guns even though I’m utterly incompetent” won’t sell outside of Manhattan. It is even dawning on Hillary, a woman so dumb that she failed the District of Columbia bar exam. And it’s dawning on the down-ticket Dems who had been dreaming of retaking the Senate in 2016, but now get to run in red states on the platform of “Let’s bring in more Muslim immigrants and take your guns!”

It wasn’t the weather that shot those people in San Bernardino. It wasn’t us conservatives. It was the people Obama refuses to name. And Americans are seeing that we are all next – unless we take action to protect ourselves, our families, our communities, and our Constitution.

Buy a gun. Stockpile ammo. Get trained. Carry where you can. Join the NRA.

Vote out the people who would import murderers and who would make it illegal to protect yourself. You won’t be alone. This is the new majority.

This is what it looks like when the tide is turning.

http://journal.ijreview.com/2015/12/250895-the-tide-is-turning-against-democrats-in-the-debate-over-gun-control/?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social&utm_content=floating-sidebar&utm_campaign=Sharing

 

[YukonGlocker]

The following article works to refute your assertion that there is sufficient impetus for new restrictive gun regulations...

That wasn't my assertion, and you fully know that because I've already replied once to your last claim that it is my assertion. Let me copy/paste it here for you:
"And I'm not saying gun restrictions are inevitable. I'm saying some kind of change is inevitable, and I hope we can address the problem outside of gun control (e.g., social issues, mental health, etc.)."

Also, the article you posted doesn't refute the growing majority opinion that some kind of change is needed.

 

[NikatKimber]

That wasn't my assertion, and you fully know that because I've already replied once to your last claim that it is my assertion. Let me copy/paste it here for you:
"And I'm not saying gun restrictions are inevitable. I'm saying some kind of change is inevitable, and I hope we can address the problem outside of gun control (e.g., social issues, mental health, etc.)."

Also, the article you posted doesn't refute the growing majority opinion that some kind of change is needed.

I have successfully resisted getting into this thread until now.

I agree with the initial assertion that "something" is going to change. More and more people I know are either changing their opinion (both to and from gun control); or if they were on the fence, they are now coming to an opinion on it.

I also agree with some of the comments in here that we can't argue logically with those who scream "gun control! gun control! gun control!" at the top of their lungs. Who we CAN reason with is those who are changing or making up their mind about the issue. Those are the people that have to be convinced that we are not raving lunatics running around waving our guns all over the place just itching for the chance to "blow 'em away"; but that we are the people they sit next to in church, or work in the office across the hall, or live next door, and are "normal" responsible law abiding citizens.

 

[Dale00]

That wasn't my assertion, and you fully know that because I've already replied once to your last claim that it is my assertion. Let me copy/paste it here for you:
"And I'm not saying gun restrictions are inevitable. I'm saying some kind of change is inevitable, and I hope we can address the problem outside of gun control (e.g., social issues, mental health, etc.)."

Ok sorry to have been a bit dense.

To get back to talking about numbers I just stumbled onto this article . It may help with what you are seeking. http://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/comparing-death-rates-from-mass-public-shootings-in-the-us-and-europe/

Some people have defended President Obama’s statement by pointing to the word “frequency.” But, even if one puts it in terms of frequency, the president’s statement is still false, with the US ranking 9th compared to European countries.

 

[dennishoddy]

I have successfully resisted getting into this thread until now.

I agree with the initial assertion that "something" is going to change. More and more people I know are either changing their opinion (both to and from gun control); or if they were on the fence, they are now coming to an opinion on it.

I also agree with some of the comments in here that we can't argue logically with those who scream "gun control! gun control! gun control!" at the top of their lungs. Who we CAN reason with is those who are changing or making up their mind about the issue. Those are the people that have to be convinced that we are not raving lunatics running around waving our guns all over the place just itching for the chance to "blow 'em away"; but that we are the people they sit next to in church, or work in the office across the hall, or live next door, and are "normal" responsible law abiding citizens.

I agree something is going to change. Gun sales are up in record numbers, Our Range "women on target" program had an extensive list of lady's that wanted to attend but couldn't because we could only accommodate so many.

We get requests at the range from folks that are looking for training as new gun owners. CC instructors are having full classes.

People are scared. They are scared of angry disturbed white men, they are scared of ethnic gangs, they are scared of terrorists, male and female.

College presidents are asking their staff and students become familiar with Concealed Carry and do so. Chief's of police in NY and Florida, mayor in Detroit are asking their folks carry, or get training and carry afterward.

Yes, things are changing. Americans are refusing to be a victim. Unlike most other countries where they are slaughtered because they have no means to resist, we are different.