Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If urbanlife actually cared about reducing mass shooting instead of just restricting guns urbanlife would propose banning the media from reporting on mass shootings.
I am also completely fine with that, unfortunately when you live in a technology based world, it would be impossible to do such a thing because the information of a mass shooting would still reach everyone. I didn't need a news show or a newspaper to tell me about the Oregon shooting, I got the update on my phone as it was happening. That is just the world we now live in.
So we should be seeing our next mass shooting sometime between now and February. I am guessing it will happen in December, nothing brings out the holiday spirit like a mass shooting.
Have you tried clicking on other topics then? If you are only hearing about one problem, then that is probably because you click on only threads about guns.
I shot a shotgun under parental supervision when I was 13 as well, I was also aware that the gun was never to be in my possession without supervision from an adult. I was also aware that I didn't have access to any guns. Too many people think it is acceptable to have loaded weapons in the reach of children, but that is a different topic about the lack of gun safety in this country.
Gun ownership might not be one, but the lack of gun safety is. Right after the Oregon shooting, there was a child who had access to his parents' gun and was able to use that gun to murder the neighbor girl over a dispute about a puppy. Too many idiots in this country have guns without any knowledge of gun safety. So that is definitely a major factor that has changed.
I would support having any study done to see what changes have happened. Unfortunately those studies would have to be proposed from a Republican because any Democrat would be labeled as trying to fish for ways to create new restrictive gun laws.
I actually click on several threads but there is a disproportionate amount of threads where gun control is being "debated". I, myself, started a thread about cell phone use taking the life of a father and 10 year old daughter. But other than that the threads here at CD seem to be driven by Gun deaths and cops killing people.
I don't know if your last sentence is in jest or not. If someone is looking for reasons "other than guns" how could they be labeled as fishing for new ways to create restrictive gun laws? That seems absurd, so I have to imagine you were being sarcastic.
And this chart states they are becoming more and more common. So no, I am not doubling down on anything other than the facts.....feel free to ignore those facts if you choose to.
I am also completely fine with that, unfortunately when you live in a technology based world, it would be impossible to do such a thing because the information of a mass shooting would still reach everyone. I didn't need a news show or a newspaper to tell me about the Oregon shooting, I got the update on my phone as it was happening. That is just the world we now live in.
So we should be seeing our next mass shooting sometime between now and February. I am guessing it will happen in December, nothing brings out the holiday spirit like a mass shooting.
All of that can be stopped, restrict the media and the nations first amendment rights to free speech and you can limit if not stop all of the reporting of any incident. Other countries are able to do it.
You are willing to sacrifice the second amendment, why not sacrifice the first?
I actually click on several threads but there is a disproportionate amount of threads where gun control is being "debated". I, myself, started a thread about cell phone use taking the life of a father and 10 year old daughter. But other than that the threads here at CD seem to be driven by Gun deaths and cops killing people.
I don't know if your last sentence is in jest or not. If someone is looking for reasons "other than guns" how could they be labeled as fishing for new ways to create restrictive gun laws? That seems absurd, so I have to imagine you were being sarcastic.
Well gun advocates do love their guns, and they do love creating new threads to talk about guns. I can't stop gun advocates from creating more threads about guns, but you can limit the amount of gun threads you click on if that is an issue for you.
You would be amazing at what people who wish to research mass shootings can be labeled as on this site or Congress, so no it was not a jest, it was just stating the obvious about the world we live in.
Then I guess there is nothing to be concerned about, there is no such thing as a rise in mass shootings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shooting4life
All of that can be stopped, restrict the media and the nations first amendment rights to free speech and you can limit if not stop all of the reporting of any incident. Other countries are able to do it.
You are willing to sacrifice the second amendment, why not sacrifice the first?
So have you made you predictions when and where the next mass shooting will happen? Oh wait, mass shootings aren't on the rise, so I guess that means there isn't going to be another mass shooting any time soon.
So basically you want to have a China like control on all our technology so that we don't have access to news as it happens.....yeah, that will go over about as well as a fart in church.
If you aren't willing to sacrifice the second amendment, why should I be willing to believe you want to sacrifice the first? Do you see why your suggestion was a bad one?
Sorry, I forget some of you guys think in absolutes and literal ideas. In 20 years from now, if the projection continues on the same path, we will be at about 40 mass shootings a year and growing, or 3.5 a month, or almost weekly. Basically we are on the path of making mass shootings those filler stories the news uses to fill the time with.
But 40 mass shootings a year isn't an issue either, is it?
And we'll have a population around 400 million and everything else will rise too. Except for gun deaths which should keep going down.
If urbanlife actually cared about reducing mass shooting instead of just restricting guns urbanlife would propose banning the media from reporting on mass shootings.
There are more and more studies like this coming out.
Ironically, the anti-gun grave dancers are the ones causing the most mass shootings, it seems.
Notice the strict gun control in Australia didn't change the trend one bit. It was going down before, and the rate didn't change after the bans/gun confiscations.
So much for that idea...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sorry, I forget some of you guys think in absolutes and literal ideas. In 20 years from now, if the projection continues on the same path, we will be at about 40 mass shootings a year and growing, or 3.5 a month, or almost weekly. Basically we are on the path of making mass shootings those filler stories the news uses to fill the time with.
