Pathetic power-grabbing hypocritical [snip]

Gun control. Gun grabs. Getting rid of the second Amendment. Sobbing drama on the news. Heart-wrenching stories.

Stop it. Stopitstopitstopitstopit!!!!!

Look, the kids losing their lives to this nutjob is a tragedy. It is sad and a terrible thing.

But two years ago, 34 children lost their lives in a terrible way also.

Last school year 34 students were killed. That's 58 deaths over what amounts to a 17-month period. And that makes an average of one child getting murdered every eight days.

In a city where handguns are already banned, Stop The Violence rallies have had little impact and the mayor's calls for stricter gun laws have fallen on deaf ears.

www.cbsnews.com...
That's right. Chicago. The inner-city. Where there was a gun ban.

Now those in power want to turn the US into Chicago when there was a gun ban.

34 children died where there was a gun ban

I'm getting so irate that I almost want to test ATS with actual swear words. I'm angry at the hypocricy. 20 kids die and soccer moms across America weep! Get rid of guns! Change America!

34 inner-city kids die in a gun free city and *meh*

Banning guns won't stop this.

Pule and whine all you fracking want, but it WONT! STOP! THE! CRIMINALS!

I swear to GOD some people don't look past the last tweet or newscast!

Get it together, people!

They're taking the 1st and 2nd Amendments in Obama's "New America"!!!!

The closer we get to a serious conversation about guns in America the louder, and more whining, the gun advocates seem to get.

It can't hurt to have a deep look at the issue and statistics in a proper setting can it? Is it really that much trouble, to perhaps save another class of 20 kids getting turned into swiss cheese?

Its funny how Obama can get on TV and fake cry about a tragedy like this, when its been said that he personally orders where every drone strike will occur, some of which hit villages where several kids were blown to pieces.

I posted something similar to what I'm posting now in an earlier thread.

In Toronto, a few years ago the gates for refugees opened up for Somalia and Jamaica. There were deals made with Jamaica which somehow let a ton of aimless misguided teens, young adults in the country, many of them with criminal attitudes and pasts. Also, the Somalians were coming from somewhere that was very war torn at the time.

Within a couple years the city shootings skyrocketed. One year dubbing it "the year of the gun."

These were more 'gangland' style shootings, but many of them very public. With no discretion some of the shooters were carrying out attacks in the middle of public places, in daylight, and a lot of innocents were getting killed/wounded.

This is from a place that has plenty of gun control. Where it's nearly impossible to own a handgun, and all guns were registered at the time. (Not the ones involved in the shootings obviously)

The problem wasn't with gun control, it wasn't a racial issue, it was a mental health issue. All the people involved in the shootings had some major anti-social behaviour problems, and mental health issues. It's as simple as that.

People never want to address the root cause of issues like this.


www.thestar.com...

www.sunnewsnetwork.ca...

This is a positive one, where leaders in the Somali community addressed the concern and had meetings about the violence.

As I said, this isn't racial. But when you have people immigrating from countries in turmoil, and they are not provided the proper guidance, it is tough for them to acclimate to a different society.

There was an underlying cause to much of the violence in a short period of history, but many failed to address it fearful of creating a racial debate, instead focusing on gun control debates, and ignoring it has really done nothing for the public.

reply to post by beezzer


I wrote some thing along those lines on an other site.
The person that shot is to blame. No one else. People need to stop with the mongering and blame game. Guns don't kill people, deranged psycho's do. A bunch of political hypocrites indeed. "Lets ban guns because they kill people". Their so wrong.

OK, How much people does booze kill? There's drunk driving, the health impacts like cirrhosis of the liver for one. How about knives? How many stabbings happen every year? Let's ban knives too. How many do Drivers kill? Let's ban cars.

The only reason they want to ban guns is it will be a huge cash cow if they do. Just like the useless war on drugs that can never be won, they want a war on Guns. It's as simple as that. What the easiest way to make money? Make it so there's so many laws that what ever you do you're guilty of something. So getting cought means big cash for them.

reply to post by beezzer

Beez, you might find this previous post I made of interest. Jamaica

S&F. Well said. Even if you did accuse me of being in league with Belafonte.

reply to post by beezzer


Yep the hypocracy of the facist gun grabbers amazes me.....

How many of them support doctors who kill children????

Where was Obama when the children in his own city died?
Where was Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson to bemoan the fates of 34 young lives?

Where were the tributes on the tv?

Where were the countless news stories?

Where were the tears?

I didn't know about this. Most probably didn't know about this.

Then again, it was just black kids in a gun-free city, so what's the fracking point!

I agree with your sentiments completely. There is no outcry for children in other countries either. No cries of 'Stop selling guns to other countries!'

I posted something similar yesterday, but if you look at a place like Switzerland, where half the population owns guns and gun related crime is virtually non-existant, I don't understand how you can still say it's the fault of the gun's presence. Blaming guns is just so much easier.

It's annoying people would rather compromise on rights than really work to figure out answers to the complex problems.

I am with you beezer.
What I want to know, and would investigate if I had the internet at home, is how many of these shooters are on prescription drugs?
I think that is going to be the "hidden" issue, that nobody in power wants to admit or discuss.

Just keep on drugging our kids, to hell with the possible and or probable side effects.

reply to post by Kryties


You're absolutely right. But I'm trying to look at the bigger picture. They are already fiddling too much with your constitution as it is. Give them the power to amend this and you give them the stepping stone they need to amend all of it to the detriment of your rights and liberties. It is tragic and so totally wrong and disturbing what happened to these kids. I can't stress that enough. But is banning guns the solution? I don't think it is.

Beezer I couldn't agree more!! I'd applaud you if i could for this rant!


I have stayed away from these conversations on here and my FB where the comments are even more ludacris than here. It has gotten out of control.

reply to post by beezzer


Right on, Beezer. Boobus America is not reading the facts.

Here's what I want to have answered about this:
The mother knew she was dealing with an unstable, more than likely violent child.
She even told the babysitter to never turn his back, never leave him alone.
She voiced her concerns and difficulties in the establishments she frequented.

So why the world would she not only have unsecured weapons in the house...

But she taught him how to use them..

Exactly on what planet does that make sense???
Someone please tell me cuz if I ever get off this one I want to avoid that one...
spellchecker activated...

ETA: S&F for you, Sir Beezer. Nice to see the old avi back...

reply to post by Agarta


That is one scary image right there.

Banning guns won't stop this.

Well there is evidence that it does stop this type of thing. Japan is the best example I can think of off hand. They have very strict gun laws over there, with only 11 gun deaths recorded in 2011. That is very clear cut evidence that banning guns does work.

Originally posted by PaTommyJ
reply to post by beezzer

 

Right on, Beezer. Boobus America is not reading the facts.

Here's what I want to have answered about this:
The mother knew she was dealing with an unstable, more than likely violent child.
She even told the babysitter to never turn his back, never leave him alone.
She voiced her concerns and difficulties in the establishments she frequented.

So why the world would she not only have unsecured weapons in the house...

But she taught him how to use them..

Exactly on what planet does that make sense???
Someone please tell me cuz if I ever get off this one I want to avoid that one...

edit on 19-12-2012 by PaTommyJ because: (no reason given)

spellchecker activated...

ETA: S&F for you, Sir Beezer. Nice to see the old avi back...

edit on 19-12-2012 by PaTommyJ because: (no reason given)

The women had mental issues. So did the son obviously. The women apparently had some paranoid thoughts on what was about to become of the world:

The mother of the loner who massacred 26 pupils and staff at a Newtown, Ct., elementary school Friday may have played a role in his breakdown, the Daily Mail reported. Friends and family portrayed Adam Lanza's mother Nancy as a paranoid "survivalist" who believed the world was on the verge of violent, economic collapse. She had been stockpiling food, water and guns in the large home she shared with her 20-year-old son in Connecticut.

www.drudge.com...

One mental case trying to treat another mental case can never end well. All relating back to the "cookoo"

The line of thinking is that if guns are made harder to obtain, people who are otherwise peaceful and unfortunately snap will likely not have access to them in a psychopathic episode. The supposed perpetrator, Lanza, had no history of violence nor a criminal record. Had he not had access to guns, he would not have been able to kill those children.

Of course, this strategy completely ignores the idea that making guns illegal doesn't make them unobtainable, and those who want them and have the means to get them will regardless of their legality. So yes, it fixes pretty much nothing to ban guns, at least in the short term.

In the long term, the murder rate would go down across the board, but that's only if it's in an area with a rather high murder rate. A peaceful suburb, then, has no need for gun laws.

Thanks for all the replies.

I just had to vent and thought it should be productive at least.

58 deaths in a year and a half? And that would be different from any other large American city? Reading the article the student killed are usually caught in a gang action. Innocents aren't being targeted like those kids in Conn were. I'm saddened and somewhat sickened that some Americans think more about gun ownership than they do innocent people getting murdered. This happens damn near monthly and we are always back to these old arguments. Nothing is solved. I have a question for all the proponents, when the next mass shooting happens, probably some time in Jan., are you going to have any feeling for those innocents that are about to die?