i agree we must try, too many little coffins. but it will be abused.

we also need to start electing a different kind of politician. Normal, productive, decent people.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Now you think morals and decency count?

Remember. If the shooter is:
•Black: He's a thug
•Immigrant: He's an illegal
•Muslim: He's a terrorist
•White: He's had a rough childhood & was bullied & girls never gave him a chance & he kept to himself & loved puppies & we must spend more on mental health.

ITS. THE. GUNS.

Mericuh
Land of the gun
Home of the grave.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Wow all ready saw that original thought over a newsmax with the rest of regular denial crowd ..

Shocking
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Like I said window dressing the rights been twisting the 2A argument for decades

It’s odd I have said own as many guns as you want and certain guns should be controlled and licensed accordingly

But the 2A extremist live in this fantasy that that’s an infringement of their rights and all roads lead to confiscation …


When was the last time you saw a Elmer Fudd at a 2 A rally ?

All I see are clowns in tactical gear with their tricked out weapons playing dress up. Mean while responsible gun owners like myself just sit back shaking their heads .. seeing 2A hijacked

Because that’s the image the extreme 2A groups want to present …. We are armed and dangerous

It’s pure selfishness . that’s how I see it .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You spend a lot more time on Newsmax than I do, only thing I go there for is reruns of Last Man Standing.

It was sarcasm which, for some reason, escapes your agile mind. :rolleyes:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It’s the best place to observe the Trump and Maga cult in the wild

Sure it was sarcasm .. the guy just killed 6 people
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

here it is. really lousy parents. shocker.

we can’t get rid of the guns. We can love our kids.

How many mass murderers grew up in a house with a mom and a dad who were absolutely committed to the kids, everyone loves each other, went to church some sundays, ate dinner together most nights with electronics turned off?

https://www.foxnews.com/us/highland-...s-former-coach
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Wow you really think society as a whole is suddenly going to revert back to the 50’s family life style? Good dream while your sleeping, but if anything this country is more and more demanding on parents trying to earn a living and kids subject to crap that impacts their mental health and you can’t eliminate either pressure. The depth of gun violence in this country and the fact it’s just getting worse and more frequent is a sad statement on the American dream. You don’t want big brother watching you and even if you can monitor the internet traffic for troubled souls, plenty off the grid can still easily access high powered weapons. Guns remain the main issue.

i never ever said i thought that was going to happen. i said that the further away we get from that, the more f-cked up we are. i don’t see us ever going back, which is synonymous with saying i don’t see it getting better.

That 1950s style family unit, you know what? it worked on a whole lot of levels.

You also didn’t answer my question ( how many future mass murderers grew up in that scenario), and the reason you dodged, is because you know the answer, but it doesn’t serve your political agenda. so you ignored it.

you say we can’t relieve the pressure on parents or kids? Bullsh-t. My wife has been home for 12 years, we pulled that off by living within a lifestyle that we can afford on my salary. We sold our boat, our vacations are camping, one of our cars is a 13 year old
minivan, and we don’t go out drinking, gambling, spending money. We chose not to live in a way that guarantees pressure on both of us to make a living. It can be done. It involves sacrifice and not caring about possessions.

You say you can’t ease the pressure on kids to reduce how much they’re exposed to things that hurt them mentally?

BULLSH-T.

Parents, at least good parents, can significantly reduce that. but it takes work. talk to your kids, play with them, instead of letting them
spend 12 hours a day online while you gold or shop. it takes a ton of work. but it’s the job of parenting.

Based in your post, i’m glad i wasn’t your kid. You can reduce those pressures, but it takes sacrifice and work, two things liberals aren’t exactly known for.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don’t disagree with you Jim, what I’m saying is the reality is Parents have forgotten how to parent and it’s likely never going to reverse course. So if you agree that sadly is the case, the main problem remains, guns, guns and more guns. How does a kid who got knives and swords taken away because family reported him, can then turn around two years later and legally (big problem) buy all those weapons. He isn’t going dear or duck hunting, but we can’t legislate real impactful gun legislation.

and there’s 400 million guns out there, plus the second amendment, so that’s never going to reverse course.

Look, i agree we have to try something with gun control, but that’s mostly out of desperation and political expediency. There’s little evidence to suggest it will do much.

We have a to. if gins and a decaying moral compass with our collective culture. That’s two big problems. Each side wants to pretend there only one issue.

If the problem is guns, guns, guns, what would you propose? There’s 400 million guns out there already. The criminals aren’t going to voluntarily hand theirs over.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Odd how the time people fantasize as perfect is before they were born
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Put the assault weapon ban back in, more wide spread and without any sunset provision because it worked. That’s not all that needs to be or can be done, but high powered weapons is a good place to start.

During the 1994-2004 ban:

In the years after the assault weapons ban went into effect, the number of deaths from mass shootings fell, and the increase in the annual number of incidents slowed down. Even including 1999’s Columbine High School massacre – the deadliest mass shooting during the period of the ban – the 1994 to 2004 period saw lower average annual rates of both mass shootings and deaths resulting from such incidents than before the ban’s inception.

From 2004 onward:

The data shows an almost immediate – and steep – rise in mass shooting deaths in the years after the assault weapons ban expired in 2004.

Breaking the data into absolute numbers, between 2004 and 2017 – the last year of our analysis – the average number of yearly deaths attributed to mass shootings was 25, compared with 5.3 during the 10-year tenure of the ban and 7.2 in the years leading up to the prohibition on assault weapons.

you’re dismissing the mental health problem because you don’t happen to like it. Utter failures in mental health policy are precisely why Newtown happened.

i’m totally fine with expanded background checks and probably ok with red flag laws although they’re ripe for abuse.

you’re also focused on the mass showings for political reasons, and completely ignoring garden variety handgun violence, which is irrefutably a much bigger problem.

that doesn’t mean we don’t consider your ideas about mass shootings. But like a dutiful liberal you only care about the smaller problem and ignore the issue hat claims far more lives. why can’t we address. both?

Because talking about the true causes of urban gun violence, is a political loser for the left, and you all know it. So it gets swept under the rug.

Black lives only matter when they help democrats win elections.

i think you have some good ideas. you’d have more good ideas, if you’d be willing to put down the Kool Aid and think outside the parameters of what liberalism tells you to think.

there’s good ideas in both sides. but both sides only talk about the good ideas that help them win elections. . both sides do it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The stories out of Highland Park about kids knowing exactly what to do when the shooting began, and guiding parents based on their active shooting drills, embody the burden of violence this next generation of kids endure because of the inaction of their elders.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

agreed. and both parties are running various states and have been in control of DC at different times, and neither has accomplished anything. both parties get a well deserved F on this issue.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Ahh, both sides
Well one side is and has for more than ten years been running political ads with candidates posing with and using assault style rifles, threatening their political opponents.
https://youtu.be/bZZ2Y6fAq8o

The same side removed the functioning assault weapons ban.
The same side has blocked comprehensive healthcare reform, police reform, weapon liability reform and any control of who can possess a weapon.
The city with the highest murder rate in the USA has no gun laws except against a concealed weapon, so perhaps gun laws actually work.

And before you claim things are impossible, remember this is the country where a guy got on a plane twenty years ago with a bomb in his shoe and ever since everyone has dutifully taken their shoes off when boarding a plane

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pete, I'm convinced you would support the Gestapo.

Cookie Cutter MAGA, clearly

As A Christian, I remind you that Jesus was a gun-loving nationalist who opposed abortion, immigration, labor unions, gay rights & Communists.

Oh wait; did I say Jesus?

Sorry, I meant Hitler.
Jesus did none of that.
That was all Hitler’s agenda.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Apparently you’ve never seen the people at a Trump rally
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sorry, I live in CT, which has been a 50 year experiment in pure, unchecked liberalism. New Haven, Bridgeport, Hartford, are all disgusting and dangerous. There has been nothing but liberalism for 50 years. Bankrupt, failing sh*tholes.

I said both sides get an F, and you respond by saying conservatives failed, shich I already conceded so I don't know what you are responding.

What's happening, in New Orleans, Baltimore, Chicago, is more than enough proof that liberalism isn't the answer either.

Pete, ignoring every single policy failure on your side might make you feel better about your side, but it's not how rational people judge success or failure.

What everybody thinks of, when the think of a Republican.

Apparently it feels good to you, just how powerful do you think city governments are?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If I concede that cities are powerless (which I don't), the state of CT has also implemented nothing but pure liberalism for 50 years. And again, New Haven, Bridgeport, and Hartford are dangerous and disgusting. So whose fault is that, the state government of Texas?

You want to know how powerful a city can be at reducing crime? Look at what happened in NYC before, during, and after Rudy's tenure, tells you everything you need to know.

Facts are facts, even the ones you don't happen to like.

Here's what liberals really struggle with. You want to improve things like crime? Look at what other places have done, and look at the results. Put politics aside, and repeat what has been shown to work, and avoid repeating what has been shown to fail.

NH is great. Have you ever been to East Rock or Westville? Big cities are where the poor, sick, etc. go. Compare the liberal states to the conserv. states and you will see which states need the help.

I showed you previously that the crime rate in NYC started going down before rudy started harassing Blacks for no reason other than being Black, continued after they stopped harassing Blacks for no other reason that being Black and went down all across the country where they weren't harassing Blacks for no other reason than being Black.

You told me a lot of things Paul, not all of them are valid.

I never said crime rates before Rudy were the highest they'd ever been. I said they got a lot lower under his leadership. That's what I said, and it's true.

So according to you guys, everything good that happens under a Republicans watch, the credit goes to the last democrat to hold that office. And everything bad that happens under a Republican's watch, is 100% the fault of that Republican. Do I have that right?

Sounds fair!

But your claim about rudy doesn't show anything about what a city can do bc many other cities (and states) had very similiar reductions in crime.

Under his watch they did develop compstat which was shown to reduce crime.

Rudy got unbelievably proactive and aggressive with handling crime. After he did that, crime rates plummeted. After your side came in and decided that criminals need hugs and free needles instead of prison, crime rates soared.

That doesn't prove causation. Especially when one is horrified at the thought of there being causation, because he was a republican.

Crime is high on voter's minds. Let's see who Americans think is better suited to handle it in a few months,

Your sides answer to crime is to "defund the police". If your goal was to appeal to the violent criminal vote, it worked. Everyone else, almost died laughing.

Police funding has increased every year with no exception
Police results decreased every year
The definition of insanity is repeating the same thing and expecting different results…..
Idiocy is when it keeps getting worse and you throw more money at them because……..
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

hello......

Scott, as usual you missed the important part, that despite the lies above what defund the police means, police funding has increased

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

it hasn’t increased everywhere.

and your side is demonizing them as well, calling them ( as you call everyone) a bunch of racists. these are people who for the most part, are heroes who risk their lives for not a ton of money.

But if calling them racist assassins helps fire up the base, by jiminy that’s good enough reason to do it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

“On police and crime prevention.
I am not just a former Senior Patrol agent. I graduated with honors from Auburn University with a bachelor of science in criminal law with an emphasis on policing. So, I understand what policing can and cannot do. Politicians often talk about crime and reducing or preventing crime as part of what police do. This is incorrect. Anyone who’s studied the organization and structure of policing knows this. Police are inherently a reactive system. A crime is being committed or has been committed, and they respond.
Policing is rarely proactive. There are cases where cops may have Intel that a crime is expected to happen and they can stop it before it happens, but those are less common. Police are generally a reactive system. If you want a proactive police force, then you have to give up most of your rights for security. You must allow them to monitor people’s movement, communications and everyday activities. This was something most Americans at one time, even in my lifetime, agreed upon. We preferred to have more freedom than being constantly monitored.
We required cops meet certain standards before listening to our calls or breaking down our doors. This is why we had Miranda rights and rules about warrants. Freedom from police unreasonable searches and seizures is enshrined in the Constitution after all.
And though this freedom has not always been applied equally to all Americans, it did exist in concept and did offer Americans a bit of a check over police abuse. Essentially, after 9/11, politicians and police have seized on this unreasonable and unattainable level of safety.
They must monitor when and where we leave and enter the country, what we did, who we talked to, our emails, our texts, our social media. We must pass through checkpoint after checkpoint if we live within 100 miles of any land or sea border, which 2/3 of us do.
We must prove our citizenship, prove we are who we say we are, where we are coming from and what we are doing. In many border towns like Uvalde, TX, almost everyone knows a cops. They are everywhere. School districts, ports, local, state, federal. Yet, mass murders like xxxx still happen. And we look to all these cops and ask why. We look to our politicians and ask why. And they look back at us and say they need more money, more weapons and more cops. But here’s the thing, we could all be cops, and we cannot stop these mass shootings. Why?
Because policing is inherently reactive. To be proactive about crime, we must look to what causes people to commit crimes and how crimes are defined. We can be proactive about poverty, hunger, lack of opportunities, mental healthcare, healthcare, responsible gun laws, etc.
We can be proactive about social work and ensuring people do not fall through the cracks. That is what being proactive about crime means; it is preventing the circumstances they often cause one to commit a crime. Police have none of these skills. So, the next time a politician or cop says the answer to crime and mass shootings is more cops, weapons and money, tell them you want to address the causes of crime in your community. More guns, cops and money does not prevent crime. It does not make us safer. Uvalde proved that.”
Jenn Budd
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

actually...I did't

Republicans beat police with our flag to show their patriotism and respect for law and order.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

In Japan if you want to kill someone, you need to make your own handgun. Only ten gun related deaths per year reported today I found amazing so I googled why. Obviously the sentiment towards violence changed their society after WWII, but serious gun regulations make the difference.

If Japanese people want to own a gun, they must attend an all-day class, pass a written test, and achieve at least 95% accuracy during a shooting-range test. Then they have to pass a mental-health evaluation, which takes place at a hospital, and pass a background check, in which the government digs into their criminal record and interviews friends and family. They can only buy shotguns and air rifles — no handguns — and every three years they must retake the class and initial exam.

Obviously this gun obsession in the US, especially buy those that make the law means we would never get to that extreme, but certainly some of that makes perfect sense.

i think those things would
cut down on gun crime. But we have a constitution, with a second amendment therein. If you’re comfortable trashing the second amendment today, what happens when someone like trump gets in, and now he wants to erase a few amendments because he doesn’t like them.

if we got rid of a lot of he guns, we’d have a big reduction in gun crime. i agree with you, IF you got them out of the hands of criminals as well. how do you do that?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Don’t do anything and it’s just more of the same.