Mass shooting in Southern Texas Church

[McLaren]

So again, why is homicide by car, bat, knife, fist, ice pick, shovel, leg, water, rental truck, poison and falling, a few at a time an acceptable risk but not by gun?

I can understand how the gun vs. vehicle argument may be stretched at times (I think it depends on how one really words it), but the blunt object one remains as strong as ever in my eyes because typically, the call for a ban on guns is 95% targeted towards "military/assault" weapons (long rifles) because "mass shootings happen every day". That reasoning shows flaws for 2 reasons; rifles contribute to less deaths than blunt objects and human fists/legs individually each year, and most mass shootings (by the definition of 4 or more people) are not carried out by such weapons.

According to Mass Shooting Tracker, 2,299 people have been affected by mass shootings. I'm going to assume any event that involved 10 or more people was long rifle-related as the argument typically flows that long rifles can injure multiple people quickly and the reported cases that reached as high as 8 or 9 sometimes involved multiple suspects involved. A couple of the cases I included also did not actually specify a weapon, but I'm going to assume a rifle anyway due to body count. There is 1 shooting that involved 11, but the gun was specifically listed as a handgun.

In any case, out of the 2,299 people listed, 631 are the result of 8 events with 10 or more affected. Going off a 2014 FBI homicide chart, that's 196 more involved than 435 deaths by blunt objects, 29 less than 660 deaths by personal weapons (hands, feet, fists, etc.).

Now, this isn't a summary intended to downplay the violence or argue that we need long rifles, and the numbers can skew a bit one way or another; it's not definitive. More so to combat those who want a specific weapon banned because "no one needs military weapons" that contributes to less deaths than any other gun-type. If the argument is to ban guns to save lives, the argument needs to start with handguns and I'll wager most of the anti-gun groups don't generally call out handguns because it'd be impossible. The argument for self-defense alone strengthens immensely for pro-gun folks for that specific weapon. This isn't a shot at you either @RC45, just highlighting your post pointing out blunt objects.

 

[RC45]

We do. Look at the money invested in self-driving or look at the safety investments in any vehicle near you right now that mark a car as "modern" compared to a vehicle of identical function from the 1950s. Why are manufacturers spending so much money on those safety systems?

Because governments mandate it - period.

Take those government mandated airbags - they kill people. What a shock and revelation that was. You punch a person in the face with an exploding plastic and metal container and they die. This is why they disarm when a small adult sit in the seat and they have off switches in 2 seat cars.
Lane departure, self braking, self steering etc. will all lead to ore distracted vehicle operators.

Yet none of this changes the fact that automobiles kill more people than guns. Add to that the 40 to 50 million lives erased by abortion annually, and you see guns kill very few people.

Good luck getting funding for improved mental health services when the GOP hears that poor people will need it.

It may interest you to know that the modern mental health system that now lacks mechanisms to involuntarily commit and incarcerate mental cases is thanks the liberal Democrat legislation that makes it all but impossible to commit people, let alone single them out for treatment.

Mental cases are a protected class, good luck getting the crazies locked up in this modern politically correct world - it aint gonna happen.

 

[Biggles]

But many precious lives will be saved.

After all, that's the point right - even if just 1 life can be saved.

Transportation is a major killer of innocent lives. Why not eliminate that threat with the vigor folks try eliminate guns.

Once all the civilian guns are melted in plow shares - then what?

Is the thought that all deaths by the hand of another will be eradicated?

This is why I ask again - What is the end game of the anti-gun crowd? ***all ears***



What difference?

The chance of you being killed in or by a vehicle is multiple factors higher than of you being killed by a gun.

Every time you step off the sidewalk you might die by vehicle.

Every time.

Every time you get behind the wheel and drive off, you might die by way of vehicle.

Unless you are a young black young man in Chicago or DC hanging out on the weekend, the chance of you getting killed by way of fire-arm as you simply step into the street is astonishingly small.

Add to this the fact that you are even more likely to die by vehicle in an anti-gun country, why again are we so tolerant of vehicle deaths?

BTW, if you eliminated all mechanized transportation, the world economy would still function - it will function at a hugely reduced capacity, but it will still function - it functioned with manual transportation for millennia before the ICE arrived. The world will adjust.

If guns are not an integral part of making the world work, why do national governments possess many millions of guns? Surely they shoudl also melt their guns into plowshares?

Honestly, what you are saying is patently absurd. Your posts are filled with straw man arguments & every variety of logical fallacy. To address just a few:

After all, that's the point right - even if just 1 life can be saved.

No - nobody here has made this point. People die - that's an inescapable reality. They die from a variety of causes. People accept all kinds of risk in their lives. Planes crash, but people fly knowing that's an inherent risk. There are all kinds of rigorous safety restrictions & regulations that are in place to make flying safer & reduce the risks - including, since 911, strict & intrusive security measures.

The chance of you being killed in or by a vehicle is multiple factors higher than of you being killed by a gun.

True, but that is a function of the fact that people in the US spend A LOT of time driving in cars. And, as as already been pointed out, cars are essential to the functioning of society at the present time in a way that guns are not.

why again are we so tolerant of vehicle deaths?

We are not. Serious & ongoing attempts are made to reduce vehicle deaths by as much as possible.

BTW, if you eliminated all mechanized transportation, the world economy would still function - it will function at a hugely reduced capacity, but it will still function - it functioned with manual transportation for millennia before the ICE arrived. The world will adjust.

The world would adjust ... but it would almost certainly lead to the death of hundreds of millions of people during the process of "adjustment".

Is the thought that all deaths by the hand of another will be eradicated?

No. What's your point?

What is the end game of the anti-gun crowd? ***all ears***

Well ... many people might wish to restrict the availability of certain kinds of guns, large magazines, automatic rifles, bump stocks etc. & restrict some people from accessing any firearms by using more rigorous & extensive background checks. Possibly that seems like an "anti-gun" end game to you?

I don't see an anti-gun "obsession" in the US. I do see an obsession WITH guns, however. An obsession that is uniquely present in the US & absent from all other comparable countries in the world. It has its roots in the United State's particular history, but has, in recent decades, been cynically promoted & exploited by the gun industry to maximize its influence & profits.

 

[Northstar]

It may interest you to know that the modern mental health system that now lacks mechanisms to involuntarily commit and incarcerate mental cases is thanks the liberal Democrat legislation that makes it all but impossible to commit people, let alone single them out for treatment.

Mental cases are a protected class, good luck getting the crazies locked up in this modern politically correct world - it aint gonna happen.

Both parties are responsible for the mess that is mental health care in the US, it's not like it just went to hell over night. There is also the issue of the stigma associated with mental issues (like people calling them "crazies"), and that's something that has nothing to do with government.

 

[TetsuKobura]

Well ... many people might wish to restrict the availability of certain kinds of guns, large magazines, automatic rifles, bump stocks etc. & restrict some people from accessing any firearms by using more rigorous & extensive background checks. Possibly that seems like an "anti-gun" end game to you?

I don't see an anti-gun "obsession" in the US. I do see an obsession WITH guns, however. An obsession that is uniquely present in the US & absent from all other comparable countries in the world. It has its roots in the United State's particular history, but has, in recent decades, been cynically promoted & exploited by the gun industry to maximize its influence & profits.

>restrict availability of certain kinds of guns, automatic weapons, bump stocks, etc.
All automatic weapons that aren't registered after 19XX (have to double check what year) are illegal. No gun control law would have prevented Las Vegas per Senator Feinstein. Also Bump stocks were approved by the ATF during the Obama administration to help gun owners with disabilities fire their weapons. Finally, in regards to the more extensive background checks, again, for the nth time this thread, Texas would have NEVER happened if a federal government system wasn't incompetent in updating their database.

>obsession with guns
You do realize that there are people who have a hobby of collecting guns, whether it be old relics or new military style weapons? There are people who also have a hobby of collecting any other things. You don't see me saying something along the lines of "Why do you have 4 different guitars if you only play one?"
You do also realize there are people who like hunting, and have many different rifles for different scenarios, right?

 

[Sage Ages]

>obsession with guns
You do realize that there are people who have a hobby of collecting guns, whether it be old relics or new military style weapons?

You realized he never mentioned anything about collecting guns, right?

 

[RC45]

Honestly, what you are saying is patently absurd. Your posts are filled with straw man arguments & every variety of logical fallacy. To address just a few:

No - nobody here has made this point. People die - that's an inescapable reality. They die from a variety of causes. People accept all kinds of risk in their lives. Planes crash, but people fly knowing that's an inherent risk. There are all kinds of rigorous safety restrictions & regulations that are in place to make flying safer & reduce the risks - including, since 911, strict & intrusive security measures.

True, but that is a function of the fact that people in the US spend A LOT of time driving in cars. And, as as already been pointed out, cars are essential to the functioning of society at the present time in a way that guns are not.

We are not. Serious & ongoing attempts are made to reduce vehicle deaths by as much as possible.

The world would adjust ... but it would almost certainly lead to the death of hundreds of millions of people during the process of "adjustment".

No. What's your point?

Well ... many people might wish to restrict the availability of certain kinds of guns, large magazines, automatic rifles, bump stocks etc. & restrict some people from accessing any firearms by using more rigorous & extensive background checks. Possibly that seems like an "anti-gun" end game to you?

I don't see an anti-gun "obsession" in the US. I do see an obsession WITH guns, however. An obsession that is uniquely present in the US & absent from all other comparable countries in the world. It has its roots in the United State's particular history, but has, in recent decades, been cynically promoted & exploited by the gun industry to maximize its influence & profits.

No - you are incorrect and NOT paying attention to the anti-gun rhetoric. I have bolded the words that matter and literally am ignoring anything else you type. That is how little your opinion means to me

I have been hearing this anti-gun tripe and spew since before I immigrated to the US in 1995.

I am simply using ALL the absurd arguments that get brought up against guns.

Here a just a few:

If only one life is saved

We must so something, ANYTHING

Guns kill people

If only we did not have guns

The 2nd is antiquated and unneeded

The NRA is behind all gun sales

If only we had 1 more law.

Gun owners need to give up a little

Driving is regulated so guns should be more regulated

It worked in Australia

Other advanced countries don't do this or that...

etc. etc. etc.

The above are but a sampling the nonsense, so don't even try present any more nonsense.

I literally have heard it all, and it is ALL nonsense. The anti-gun agenda is to eliminate ALL civilian gun ownership.

We know this, so why is the agenda always hidden behind "ooh we need to save the chillens".

Folks, you want it so bad, to eliminate private gun ownership, go get the 2nd Amendment repealed. Just don't be surprised when the 1st follows soon afterwards.

Both parties are responsible for the mess that is mental health care in the US, it's not like it just went to hell over night. There is also the issue of the stigma associated with mental issues (like people calling them "crazies"), and that's something that has nothing to do with government.

No, the left and Democrats are specifically responsible for commitment limiting legislation.

 

[Northstar]

No - you are incorrect and NOT paying attention to the anti-gun rhetoric. I have bolded the words that matter and literally am ignoring anything else you type. That is how little your opinion means to me

I have been hearing this anti-gun tripe and spew since before I immigrated to the US in 1995.

I am simply using ALL the absurd arguments that get brought up against guns.

Here a just a few:

If only one life is saved

We must so something, ANYTHING

Guns kill people

If only we did not have guns

The 2nd is antiquated and unneeded

The NRA is behind all gun sales

If only we had 1 more law.

Gun owners need to give up a little

Driving is regulated so guns should be more regulated

It worked in Australia

Other advanced countries don't do this or that...

etc. etc. etc.

The above are but a sampling the nonsense, so don't even try present any more nonsense.

I literally have heard it all, and it is ALL nonsense. The anti-gun agenda is to eliminate ALL civilian gun ownership.

We know this, so why is the agenda always hidden behind "ooh we need to save the chillens".

Folks, you want it so bad, to eliminate private gun ownership, go get the 2nd Amendment repealed. Just don't be surprised when the 1st follows soon afterwards.

I've heard things that are just as stupid, if not more so from the pro-gun side.

No, the left and Democrats are specifically responsible for commitment limiting legislation.

If you honestly think locking people up is all that mental health services consists of I'm forever done talking to you.

 

[RC45]

I've heard things that are just as stupid, if not more so from the pro-gun side.

No you haven't, unless you feel the 2nd Amendment to the constitution is stupid.

If you honestly think locking people up is all that mental health services consists of I'm forever done talking to you.

I never said that is all mental health services are about, but without any commitment legislation that has some teeth, all the do-gooder mental health gymnastics mean nothing - as is proven by the current state of mental health services.

I have seen friends and associates try deal with the mental health system and their family members that are KNOWN problem people with horribly violent tendencies and that pose a real danger to everyone around them, and it is not until the person has posed a threat to the police or other government entity that the system gets serious - and then the solution is to shoot them.

IOW, while they only pose a general threat to the general population (spouses, work colleagues, family members) the system does not care - the result is horrible tragedies or a dead mental patient at the hands of police.

So again, I am telling you the current state of mental health services in the US is a direct result of commitment-abolishing legislation pushed by liberal Democrats.

But go ahead, keep grinding that organ to the dancing monkey - you will never solve anything until you realize the monkey is dancing to the music, no the other way round.

 

[Northstar]

No you haven't, unless you feel the 2nd Amendment to the constitution is stupid.

I have seen several people insist they need to constantly carry an assault rifle regardless of the circumstance and try making a background check out as being a fate worse than death.

Don't sit there and say only one side makes stupid arguments, it just doesn't work.

I never said that is all mental health services are about, but without any commitment legislation that has some teeth, all the do-gooder mental health gymnastics mean nothing - as is proven by the current state of mental health services.

I have seen friends and associates try deal with the mental health system and their family members that are KNOWN problem people with horribly violent tendencies and that pose a real danger to everyone around them, and it is not until the person has posed a threat to the police or other government entity that the system gets serious - and then the solution is to shoot them.

IOW, while they only pose a general threat to the general population (spouses, work colleagues, family members) the system does not care - the result is horrible tragedies or a dead mental patient at the hands of police.

So again, I am telling you the current state of mental health services in the US is a direct result of commitment-abolishing legislation pushed by liberal Democrats.

But go ahead, keep grinding that organ to the dancing monkey - you will never solve anything until you realize the monkey is dancing to the music, no the other way round.

...And my ignore list finally has someone on it.

Best of luck everyone else, I'm bowing out of this one. [/QUOTE]

 

[RC45]

...And my ignore list finally has someone on it.

Best of luck everyone else, I'm bowing out of this one.

Which proves "the other side" refuses to accept reality and why I find 'debating' them is pointless

I just told this guy I have friends with direct experience with the US mental health system and that the system has no capacity to deal with really violent dangerous people until they threaten the government and yet he chooses to totally ignore the reality.

 

[Biggles]

I am simply using ALL the absurd arguments that get brought up against guns,

I guess that's all you're left with when your own arguments don't stand up to any scrutiny.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I have friends with direct experience with the US mental health system

Authority assured.

 

[RC45]

I guess that's all you're left with when your own arguments don't stand up to any scrutiny.

No, I have the US Constitution and US Supreme court on my side of the "Keep and bear arms shall not be infringed " argument, and that's all that really counts.

Authority assured.

It doesn't matter whether you believe me or the family, the dead mental patient is all the proof the family needs.

Oh, and not to forget the dead church goers and dead attacker in this very thread.

What do you have?

 

[Joey D]

Because governments mandate it - period.

Take those government mandated airbags - they kill people.

Lane departure, self braking, self steering etc. will all lead to ore distracted vehicle operators.

Yet none of this changes the fact that automobiles kill more people than guns.

Add to that the 40 to 50 million lives erased by abortion annually, and you see guns kill very few people.

It may interest you to know that the modern mental health system that now lacks mechanisms to involuntarily commit and incarcerate mental cases is thanks the liberal Democrat legislation that makes it all but impossible to commit people, let alone single them out for treatment.

The anti-gun agenda is to eliminate ALL civilian gun ownership.

No, the left and Democrats are specifically responsible for commitment limiting legislation.

[citation needed]

You've thrown around many things that you claim are facts, yet there's no source to any of them. Can you please provide where you are getting your information from? I'm particularly curious to know how you alone know the agenda of every single "anti-gun" person - especially since the folks you label "anti-gun" range from those who think the current system needs a little updating to those who want to ban guns outright. Just like the "pro-gun" side, there's a wide spectrum of opinions.

Which proves "the other side" refuses to accept reality and why I find 'debating' them is pointless

So you just want to talk about opinions with those you agree with? That's not much of a debate, nor is it much of a discussion.

Even though I'm in favor of gun ownership, I still find it important to have discussions with those who aren't in favor of it. We may not change each other's mind's but at least we hear out the other side so we can make rational thoughts in the future.

 

[TetsuKobura]

[citation needed]

You've thrown around many things that you claim are facts, yet there's no source to any of them.

He's right on the cars kill more than guns argument
https://www.autoblog.com/2016/01/06/guns-dont-actually-kill-many-americans-cars/
As far as the abortions argument goes, it's nowhere near millions annually, however it's still significantly higher than gun deaths per year.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/65/ss/ss6512a1.htm

 

[Joey D]

He's right on the cars kill more than guns argument
https://www.autoblog.com/2016/01/06/guns-dont-actually-kill-many-americans-cars/

So it's almost equal then.

I should probably amend my previous post and instead ask for a citation on this:

The chance of you being killed in or by a vehicle is multiple factors higher than of you being killed by a gun.

 

[KungFury]

So it's almost equal then.

I should probably amend my previous post and instead ask for a citation on this:

If you include pedestrians, bicyclists, motorcyclists, and passengers, the number is multiple times higher. https://www.livescience.com/3780-odds-dying.html

The percentage of gun deaths to overall deaths is more important to me but we are speaking of violence anyway and I'd bet the numbers are quite low for murder by transport vehicle.

 

[RC45]

[citation needed]

You've thrown around many things that you claim are facts, yet there's no source to any of them. Can you please provide where you are getting your information from?

No, I don't do other peoples home work for them.

I also do not make mistakes or provide false data.

Feel free to try prove me wrong, you won't be able to - I don't do "incorrect data".

So it's almost equal then.

I should probably amend my previous post and instead ask for a citation on this:

Those numbers are bolstered by thousands of young black men (and bystanders) killed by gang related gun fire in the inner cities with strictest gun laws in the USA.

Remove those thousands of young black men that die by gun every year and suddenly you see guns kill hardly anyone.

Some Chicago stats

http://heyjackass.com/

November to Date
Shot & Killed: 12
Shot & Wounded: 61
Total Shot: 73
Total Homicides: 12

He's right on the cars kill more than guns argument
https://www.autoblog.com/2016/01/06/guns-dont-actually-kill-many-americans-cars/
As far as the abortions argument goes, it's nowhere near millions annually, however it's still significantly higher than gun deaths per year.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/65/ss/ss6512a1.htm

Globally 10's of millions of babies are aborted each year - about 30 million in Asia alone.

The US's share is quite high for a first world country with such easy access to food, shelter and medicine.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

No, I don't do other peoples home work for them.

Actually, if you're the one making the statement, the burden of proof is on you. Other people don't do your homework for you.

 

[RC45]

Actually, if you're the one making the statement, the burden of proof is on you. Other people don't do your homework for you.

No, I made a factual statement, you (or anyone else) not believing me does not change the facts.

I don't care if you or anyone else believes me, I am correct - period. My statements stand as correct.

So again, if you doubt my statement, go ahead and prove me wrong. But you won't be able to - I don't do bogus facts.

 

[KungFury]

Remove those thousands of young black men that die by gun every year and suddenly you see guns kill hardly anyone.

Wow.

 

[TexRex]

I don't know about [almost] everyone else, but as I read through the immeasurable stupidity present on this page, I can't help but see one face:

Let's arm everyone so that when gun violence is perpetrated, at least those this violence is carried out against can't be categorized as unarmed. "Gunman terrorizes shopping mall in central Arkansas, killing 14 unarmed individuals before being neutralized by other individuals who kill 7 more unarmed in the process."

 

[Joey D]

No, I don't do other peoples home work for them.

I also do not make mistakes or provide false data.

Feel free to try prove me wrong, you won't be able to - I don't do "incorrect data".

Negative Ghostrider.

That's not how it works. If you're making a statement that you say is a fact, then the burden of proof is on you. It's a pretty common practice in the Opinion & Current Events section of GTP.

Also, you were already proved wrong by @TetsuKobura with the article he posted. Vehicle deaths are not multiple factors higher than gun deaths.

Finally, I'm still struggling to find where Democrats ruined mental healthcare in America. I actually work in healthcare and even though I think the Affordable Care Act did a lot wrong, it did give people with no access to mental healthcare a chance to actually start receiving it. Based on the history of mental healthcare in America though, it's largely the fault of the states for slashing budgets.

Those numbers are bolstered by thousands of young black men (and bystanders) killed by gang related gun fire in the inner cities with strictest gun laws in the USA.

Remove those thousands of young black men that die by gun every year and suddenly you see guns kill hardly anyone.

Ok, let me get this straight. Murder statistics don't count if the one who's murdered is a young black man? I've heard some doozies in this part of the forum before, but that's up there.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

No, I made a factual statement, you (or anyone else) not believing me does not change the facts.

Where did I say I didn't believe you?

I don't care if you or anyone else believes me, I am correct - period. My statements stand as correct.

I don't care if you or anyone else believes me, I am correct - period. My statements stand as correct above yours.

 

[RC45]

Wow.

Shocking isn't it - that a single demographic is the main victim of gun crime yet no-one tries to stop the carnage.

My heart goes out to all the black families that lose their young men to gang related gun violence that never gets reported on.

Negative Ghostrider.

That's not how it works. If you're making a statement that you say is a fact, then the burden of proof is on you. It's a pretty common practice in the Opinion & Current Events section of GTP.

Again, no. I am not debating on the school debate team - I am not trying to change your or anyone elses mind. I am just delivering the fact to you- believe them or not, they don;t change based on you accepting them.

If you doubt my statement, prove me wrong. I do not need to prove it to you or anyone else for it to remain true.

Also, you were already proved wrong by @TetsuKobura with the article he posted. Vehicle deaths are not multiple factors higher than gun deaths.

No - again, those numbers include the gang on gang gun violence numbers of gun deaths takign place in cities without guns - likw Chicago and DC and other gun restricted cities.

When those gang on gang deaths get listed separately of others and are specifically addressed in the context of the horribly mismanaged Democrat run cities, that have created this horrible inner city carnage of black young men then you can lump them in with the rest.

Finally, I'm still struggling to find where Democrats ruined mental healthcare in America. I actually work in healthcare and even though I think the Affordable Care Act did a lot wrong, it did give people with no access to mental healthcare a chance to actually start receiving it. Based on the history of mental healthcare in America though, it's largely the fault of the states for slashing budgets.

Go back to the 1970's for that one. Do some research, there are a laundry list of Democrat initiates that ended up making it near impossible for family members to involuntarily commit violent and dangerous and otherwise mentally ill folks. The Democrats have been ruining the US healthcare system for decades before the ACA came along.

Ok, let me get this straight. Murder statistics don't count if the one who's murdered is a young black man? I've heard some doozies in this part of the forum before, but that's up there.

Project much? Wow, talk about going out of your way to make a post into something it is not.

YOU are the one who immediately had that thought - I never suggested that at all.

I am telling you the sheer number of young black men killed by inter and intra gang gun violence in the Democrat run inner cities is so large that it deserves its own list to highlight this plight and bring it to the general national attention so that the problem can be addressed.

There are so many young black men killed by this violence that their numbers skew all statistical samples.

We need to stop the carnage some how.

Seriously, if you visit this website, view these numbers and do not come away sick to your stomach that Obama's home town and Rahm Emanuel's play ground can be so fraught with gun violence and death yet you never see this plight discussed on the TV news then you are unfeeling and towards these families.

http://heyjackass.com/

Instead we have to read about how bumpstocks and assault rifles and the NRA are to blame.. mass shooting this and mass shooting that yada yada yada. Chicago kills a church full of people every week.

When will the real hotbeds of gun violence and death - the Democrat inner cities with overtly restrictive gun control - get talked about and something done?

 

[Joey D]

Again, no. I am not debating on the school debate team - I am not trying to change your or anyone elses mind. I am just delivering the fact to you- believe them or not, they don;t change based on you accepting them.

If you doubt my statement, prove me wrong. I do not need to prove it to you or anyone else for it to remain true.

I'm really not surprised you were banned in 2015 for being unable to have a civil discussion with folks that had a different opinion than yours. A civil discussion revolves around an actual discussion, not just spewing whatever "facts" you come up with, without a source, and then simply saying "I'm right and you're wrong" when someone questions them.

No - again, those numbers include the gang on gang gun violence numbers of gun deaths takign place in cities without guns - likw Chicago and DC and other gun restricted cities.

When those gang on gang deaths get listed separately of others and are specifically addressed in the context of the horribly mismanaged Democrat run cities, that have created this horrible inner city carnage of black young men then you can lump them in with the rest.

So you're cherry picking what you want to believe and accept? Gun violence is gun violence no matter who's at the receiving end of it. You claim was those vehicle deaths are a multitude higher than gun related deaths. That's simply not true unless you can post a source stating otherwise. You never stated that you put an asterisk next to it with a multitude of conditions. I could skew data too and get any result I want.

Go back to the 1970's for that one. Do some research, there are a laundry list of Democrat initiates that ended up making it near impossible for family members to involuntarily commit violent and dangerous and otherwise mentally ill folks. The Democrats have been ruining the US healthcare system for decades before the ACA came along.

It's not just the Democrats that ruin healthcare, it's the government in general, no matter which party the members are. The Republicans are just as bad at screwing up the country as the Democrats, which makes me incredibly glad I don't belong to either one of those parties. I already provided you a list of states that slashed mental healthcare budgets, and looking through them it looks like many of them are longtime red states.

Project much? Wow, talk about going out of your way to make a post into something it is not.

YOU are the one who immediately had that thought - I never suggested that at all.

I am telling you the sheer number of young black men killed by inter and intra gang gun violence in the Democrat run inner cities is so large that it deserves its on list to highlight this plight and bring it to the general national attention so that the problem can be addressed.

There are so many young black men killed by this violence that their numbers skew all statistical samples.

We need to stop the carnage some how.

I wasn't the one separating it out by race, you were. Saying that you need to take young black men out of the equation when looking at total gun violence seems ridiculous. As I've said, gun violence is gun violence. It doesn't matter if the receiver of the violence is white, black, or anything in between. There doesn't need to be a separate list, there just needs to be one list: those who were killed by a firearm.

There's definitely a way you could have phrased your statement to sound less racist. But what you typed made it sound like young black men don't count when looking at gun violence statistics.

 

[RC45]

There's definitely a way you could have phrased your statement to sound less racist. But what you typed made it sound like young black men don't count when looking at gun violence statistics.

No, you read it that way.

The reason you need to separate out the inner city black on black gun violence is so that it can be addressed.

Until you separate the numbers out then these needless deaths will be caught up in the mass shooting and other pointless back and forth chatter.

So again, if you take out the inner city deaths the gun deaths numbers go way down and then the effort can be focused on where it needs to be - to stop the carnage int he inner cities.

You wont solve the inner city gun carnage with "a better mental health system" - these are not jilted lovers and divorce cases gone wrong - or depressed cousins or skitzo junkies.

These are gangs killing each other for drug sales, turf and pride.

The gun violence problem in the US is not going to be solved by pointing the finger at white middle America in the corn belt and yelling at them to turn in their NRA cards and their hunting rifles. It needs to be addressed in the inner cities first.

Chicago Weekend Tally

Week in Progress (11/5 – 11/11)
Shot & Killed: 6
Shot & Wounded: 33
Total Shot: 39
Total Homicides: 6

 

[UKMikey]

I don't know about [almost] everyone else, but as I read through the immeasurable stupidity present on this page, I can't help but see one face:

Let's arm everyone so that when gun violence is perpetrated, at least those this violence is carried out against can't be categorized as unarmed. "Gunman terrorizes shopping mall in central Arkansas, killing 14 unarmed individuals before being neutralized by other individuals who kill 7 more unarmed in the process."

Crikey. I hope this unreliable account is as untrue as it sounds:

https://www.redstate.com/sweetie15/...count-sean-hannity-pulling-gun-juan-williams/

 

[TexRex]

Crikey. I hope this unreliable account is as untrue as it sounds:

https://www.redstate.com/sweetie15/...count-sean-hannity-pulling-gun-juan-williams/

They're both Fox News personalities, so they're lying if they say it happened and they're lying if they say it didn't.