[canyonblue]

Originally Posted by Justus

If gun control laws were the answer, Detroit would be the safest place in the country.

Detroit only regulates guns, it's Chicago that bans them. If anything you would think that Capone taught them that banning something won't stop it.

[Number 10 GI]

With the vitriolic discourse in this country is it no wonder we have mentally unstable people going off and committing these types of acts? When you have political leaders encouraging physical confrontation with those they politically/morally/ideologically disagree with, what do you expect will happen? Then there is the media that thrives on stirring the pot getting people worked up and angry hoping to create an act of violence so they can have a "breaking news" moment. Guns, bludgeons, knives, axes and other objects are not evil talismen that whisper, kill someone, to the individual holding them. They are just tools. Eliminating the tools won't change anything as long as the hate mongers keep preaching their evil, they are the problem that needs to be dealt with.

[LiverpoolWalrus]

Originally Posted by Bay Kid

They are coming for our guns even though none of my guns have never killed anything.

Yup. Just like they came for our cars when they started requiring seat belts.

[DeanFL]

Originally Posted by LiverpoolWalrus

Yup. Just like they came for our cars when they started requiring seat belts.

.
.
or "Just like" they came for our apples and made oranges.
(apples & oranges commentary above)...
.
.

[LiverpoolWalrus]

Originally Posted by DeanFL

.
.
or "Just like" they came for our apples and made oranges.
(apples & oranges commentary above)...
.
.

I see it as apples to apples, but thanks for your input. In other words, they didn't come for our cars when there were efforts to make the use of cars safer by requiring seat belts...and they are not coming for anyone's guns in trying to make the use of guns safer.

Clearer? Or still a false equivalency?

[Bucco]

Originally Posted by LiverpoolWalrus

I see it as apples to apples, but thanks for your input. In other words, they didn't come for our cars when there were efforts to make the use of cars safer by requiring seat belts...and they are not coming for anyone's guns in trying to make the use of guns safer.

Clearer? Or still a false equivalency?

Your logic is clear.....your point is a great one.

Remember, these people don't think.....they simply repeat what they are told to think.

They rely on being the "victim" on every issue. No discussion, no nothing except that they believe everyone is out to get them.

[DeanFL]

Originally Posted by LiverpoolWalrus

I see it as apples to apples, but thanks for your input. In other words, they didn't come for our cars when there were efforts to make the use of cars safer by requiring seat belts...and they are not coming for anyone's guns in trying to make the use of guns safer.

Clearer? Or still a false equivalency?

.
.
I 'hear ya'. ... cars safer with seat belts. guns safer with trigger locks. apples<>apples.

STILL both can be killers if not used properly.

Cars will be deadly if used by drunk or drugged (or whatever) drivers.
Guns will be deadly if used by criminal/'bad folks' (or whatever) shooters.

...all I can say is...IF I am in a situation where, in a store their is a nutty 'shooter', I sure hope there is a trained, armed indivudual in the store too - take out the bad guy before damage is done and waiting for LEOs.
I can't be that guy...no guns, my choice. Just glad it IS a choice.
.
.

[LiverpoolWalrus]

Originally Posted by Bucco

Your logic is clear.....your point is a great one.

Remember, these people don't think.....they simply repeat what they are told to think.

They rely on being the "victim" on every issue. No discussion, no nothing except that they believe everyone is out to get them.

Well said, Bucco. I think cable news is partly responsible for this. I've heard educated commentators (I'm sure everyone has) who have said things like "they're coming for our guns," when they know darn well that's not true. It's called propaganda, or pandering to the base, because that's what the base wants to hear. Then when they hear it enough (or maybe even only once), then they believe it.

It's the same with them parroting "socialism" this and "socialism" that. It's because the cable news commentators are saying it's socialism or a person is a socialist, not because it IS socialism or the person is a socialist.

Just the other day I heard a respected commentator say "if we still have to wear masks after getting vaccinated, then why bother to get vaccinated"? My jaw dropped. He's smarter than that. He knew the answer. He was just playing the role of his audience members. He was telling them what they wanted to hear, even though he knew better.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

1. It WAS headline news nationwide.
2. The reason it wasn't made as big a deal as shootings was:
2a) he never shot the gun or even aimed it at anyone.
2b) the only law he actually broke was carrying the gun in public WHILE IT WAS LOADED. You don't need a permit of any kind to carry a rifle in Georgia. He had the right to bring his weapon into Publix, he had the right to carry ammo on his person. He even had the right to load it in the bathroom. What he didn't have the right to do, was leave the bathroom with the loaded rifle in his possession. That's it. Barely a slap on the wrist.

[LiverpoolWalrus]

Originally Posted by DeanFL

.
.
I 'hear ya'. ... cars safer with seat belts. guns safer with trigger locks. apples<>apples.

.

But just as importantly:

Cars will be safer and nobody's taking a car you own = Guns will be safer and nobody's taking a gun you own

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by LiverpoolWalrus

Well said, Bucco. I think cable news is partly responsible for this. I've heard educated commentators (I'm sure everyone has) who have said things like "they're coming for our guns," when they know darn well that's not true. It's called propaganda, or pandering to the base, because that's what the base wants to hear. Then when they hear it enough (or maybe even only once), then they believe it.

It's the same with them parroting "socialism" this and "socialism" that. It's because the cable news commentators are saying it's socialism or a person is a socialist, not because it IS socialism or the person is a socialist.

Just the other day I heard a respected commentator say "if we still have to wear masks after getting vaccinated, then why bother to get vaccinated"? My jaw dropped. He's smarter than that. He knew the answer. He was just playing the role of his audience members. He was telling them what they wanted to hear, even though he knew better.

He wasn't telling them what they want to hear. He was dictating to them what they are required to believe. It's called propaganda and it's very effective (obviously).

[5:00somewhere]

It's been proven time and time again, gun control laws do not work. Killing someone is against the law in every state in the U.S. If a criminal is going to break that law, why would he obey ANY gun law?

Chicago has the toughest gun laws in our country and they have the highest homicide rate too. It's not guns, it's criminals.

The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun.

I know that nothing has ever been written that would change the mind of anyone on either side of this issue. But I keep hoping that if both sides really tried to find an intelligent solution and stop politicizing the issue, progress can be made. Let's try to reestablish the two parent family to begin. Let's increase funding for mental health issues. Let's start thinking outside the box on this.

[tvbound]

Originally Posted by LiverpoolWalrus

I see it as apples to apples, but thanks for your input. In other words, they didn't come for our cars when there were efforts to make the use of cars safer by requiring seat belts...and they are not coming for anyone's guns in trying to make the use of guns safer.

Clearer? Or still a false equivalency?

Originally Posted by LiverpoolWalrus

Yup. Just like they came for our cars when they started requiring seat belts.

It's proved to be great for business for the gun and ammo manufacturers though, to keep scaring the easily gullible people by constantly saying it.

[Bucco]

Originally Posted by LiverpoolWalrus

Well said, Bucco. I think cable news is partly responsible for this. I've heard educated commentators (I'm sure everyone has) who have said things like "they're coming for our guns," when they know darn well that's not true. It's called propaganda, or pandering to the base, because that's what the base wants to hear. Then when they hear it enough (or maybe even only once), then they believe it.

It's the same with them parroting "socialism" this and "socialism" that. It's because the cable news commentators are saying it's socialism or a person is a socialist, not because it IS socialism or the person is a socialist.

Just the other day I heard a respected commentator say "if we still have to wear masks after getting vaccinated, then why bother to get vaccinated"? My jaw dropped. He's smarter than that. He knew the answer. He was just playing the role of his audience members. He was telling them what they wanted to hear, even though he knew better.

You are spot on.

The age of disinformation is blooming.....the age of having zero accountability is here.....the buzz words are sickening in most cases, and are consistent.

Most importantly, the age of simply mouthing what we are told to say, and ceasing to use our brains to determine how we feel by understanding the issue. Generalities used to slander has replaced using facts to show a point of view. When confronted, make yourself the victim.

Those crying for headlines only want the headline they want, not truth or even Justice.

This was news but instead of applauding the person who alerted authority, or applauding those officials who handled this so professionally, some are simply looking for new thread to go in their direction.

This story should have generated a discussion of folks being able to assemble an arsenal like that in their home. Not sure about anyone else, but that was my first thought.

[Bucco]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

He wasn't telling them what they want to hear. He was dictating to them what they are required to believe. It's called propaganda and it's very effective (obviously).

I hope you are wrong.

I always maintained that those who simply blindly mouth others words are simpletons, but cannot think of a word strong enough to describe anyone who feels obliged to believe words from whatever they consider "on high"

But, then again, a mental review of the news might validate strongly what you say