Sarcastic Gun Rights Advocates

[malcorub16]

Originally Posted by Delahanty

No, you're not.

Yes I am, dummy. Oh wait, yes, you're right, I don't want to hear yours specifically.

[spankys bbq]

Originally Posted by JimRom

The sarcasm and cynicism is a direct result of arguing with anti-gun zealots who refuse to actually learn about the subject. It's roughly analogous to how adults react when a 10-year-old is explaining why living at Disney World would be the best thing ever for the three hundredth time.

That's a much more polite way of posting what I was trying to say.


But I still stand by my post.

[NY_refugee87]

Originally Posted by malcorub16

"Active shooter" was reported at the finish line of the San Diego Rock and Roll Marathon today two hours ago. Thankfully, no casualties as the gunWOMAN only had a an airsoft gun and was arrested promptly.

There was no coverage on TV at first so I resorted to follow facebook comments as people will report what they here on police scanners on FB in the comments section. Before the facts could be confirmed via newsfeed from a local news station, sarcastic comments were already flowing:

"what, I thought California had strict gun laws? This can't be. Say it ain't so" and "we have a people problem, not a gun problem, liberal laws don't help", and the ever popular "Isn't that a gun free zone"?

The account appeared to be very legitimate and not a troll account. They even linked in their facebook buddies for reinforcement who also chimed in, all appeared to be real accounts for active/ex military service men.

Why would the first reaction to a BREAKING news story on an active shooter not more than 30 minutes old with little known facts, be to post cynical and sarcastic comments OR post about protecting your gun rights? Does this really help the cause any? Is it appropriate to do 30 minutes after the breaking story when the facts are not all in. Should I just stay the hell off the Facebook comments section? What's your take? I am not against gun rights, but it irks me that is people's first reaction online. Looking for opinions from all sides.

Why would the first reaction to a tragedy be we need to pass draconian laws that affect non criminals?

Why would the first reaction be to focus on the weapon and blame the weapon and not the perpetrator and their sick reasons for committing the atrocity?

Guess you aren't liking when the tactics employed to sway public opinion via media are taken and used by non media and non politicians...

We read their book. Now we follow their plays. You and they don't like it when they get a taste of their own medicine.

[rigby06]

Originally Posted by malcorub16

"Active shooter" was reported at the finish line of the San Diego Rock and Roll Marathon today two hours ago. Thankfully, no casualties as the gunWOMAN only had a an airsoft gun and was arrested promptly.

There was no coverage on TV at first so I resorted to follow facebook comments as people will report what they here on police scanners on FB in the comments section. Before the facts could be confirmed via newsfeed from a local news station, sarcastic comments were already flowing:

"what, I thought California had strict gun laws? This can't be. Say it ain't so" and "we have a people problem, not a gun problem, liberal laws don't help", and the ever popular "Isn't that a gun free zone"?

The account appeared to be very legitimate and not a troll account. They even linked in their facebook buddies for reinforcement who also chimed in, all appeared to be real accounts for active/ex military service men.

Why would the first reaction to a BREAKING news story on an active shooter not more than 30 minutes old with little known facts, be to post cynical and sarcastic comments OR post about protecting your gun rights? Does this really help the cause any? Is it appropriate to do 30 minutes after the breaking story when the facts are not all in. Should I just stay the hell off the Facebook comments section? What's your take? I am not against gun rights, but it irks me that is people's first reaction online. Looking for opinions from all sides.

One of the reasons that gun owners would respond sarcastically has already been addressed on this thread. Preemptive response to what the liberal media will no doubt already say about a shooting.


Take 3 different killings incidents in US recent history, and look to what is discussed in each.


1.) The attack in Charlottesville by the person using a car as a weapon in a crowd.
https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/14/us/ch...oto/index.html


No mention the car was a Dodge, but a person intentionally ran down innocent people on a crowded street.


2.) The attack on the Boston Marathon bombing.
Boston Marathon bomb devices were pressure cookers filled with nails, ball bearings: report - NY Daily News


No mention of the make and model of the pressure cooker that was used, just a bomb went off; how many it killed, and eventually who was caught and charged for the killings.


3.) And lastly the Parkland shooter, multiple discussions about that he used a AR-15, in fact one thread by me on the make and model of the AR-15:
//www.city-data.com/forum/great...shootings.html


When other tragedies occur the story is of the victim's and who committed the crime and hopefully why the crime was committed, and a basic's of how the committed the crime. But in a large shooting the brand and in most cases the specific make and model of firearm used is the highlight of the story.


Why is the make and model of firearm of any relevance unless it is part of an agenda. Should the story not be innocent number of X people were killed by a nutcase? The make and model of the firearm used are irrelevant correct?