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.
There are "Mass Shootings" in nearly every inner city being committed by Blacks on other Blacks, yet the Media, nor Democrats seem to care because it doesn't fit their agenda to disarm only the law abiding citizens. Chicago, Philly, Baltimore, L.A., Atlanta, Miami, etc. Nobody cares about that do they?
There are "Mass Shootings" in nearly every inner city being committed by Blacks on other Blacks, yet the Media, nor Democrats seem to care because it doesn't fit their agenda to disarm only the law abiding citizens. Chicago, Philly, Baltimore, L.A., Atlanta, Miami, etc. Nobody cares about that do they?
Yes, I totally agree, the only school shootings we will see on the media, are mainly in white, fairly affluent districts.
I dont think anyone is shocked by this though, I mean, whenever a non-white child goes missing or worse, is abducted, there is rarely any coverage or attention paid to it...on the other hand, if a white child goes missing, they put the descriptions up on expressway traffic signs, all over local and national media, if its white female...OH MY, the intensity ramps up drastically!
You are comparing two unlikely things. Having a gun in a spree shooting scenario requires additional agency, something not needed with a seat belt. We know from studies done during war time that plenty of soldiers are unwilling or mentally unable to kill the enemy in battle. Just because the man next to you in the theater is carrying doesn't mean he will be of any use if a spree shooter shows up. Worse yet, you run the additional risk of being shot in a crossfire.
Also, having numerous people carrying arms in a spree shooting scenario creates some serious problems. Will each person at the scene who is carrying be certain exactly who the spree shooter is? or will they end up accidentally kill each other instead? What happens when the police arrive and there are several different people firing back and forth at each other. How they are they suppose to know who the real threat is? Etc, etc, etc.
True, simply having a firearm doesn't guarantee that it will be utilized or that it's utilization will be effective. The broader question though isn't whether having a firearm will magically "solve" all the issues at hand, the question is whether or not it decreases potential death tolls overall and it's understood that there will inevitably be specific situations where it does not (or possibly even increase it).
Yes, I totally agree, the only school shootings we will see on the media, are mainly in white, fairly affluent districts.
I dont think anyone is shocked by this though, I mean, whenever a non-white child goes missing or worse, is abducted, there is rarely any coverage or attention paid to it...on the other hand, if a white child goes missing, they put the descriptions up on expressway traffic signs, all over local and national media, if its white female...OH MY, the intensity ramps up drastically!
The CDC lists "child" gun deaths for anyone through age 23. That way they can add in the gang killings.
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.
