Honest question, how sure are you that all 1.2 million incidents were life threatening?
Texas school had a shooting plan, armed officers and practice.
- Thread starter THE_DEVIL
- Start date
Honest question, how sure are you that all 1.2 million incidents were life threatening?
Honestly if I have to pull a gun then I fear for mine and my family’s safety
So you can’t answer definitively is what you are saying.
BS. How many more links do you need to get your head out of the sand?...
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/03/12/health/gun-violence-research-cdc.html
They were banned from using tax funds for promoting gun control, they were never bared from studying any kind of violence.
There was a damn good reason why this happened too.
True. Gun lobby
They aren't banned from doing research. The NRA was upset about a 1993 study that concluded that having a gun in your home was more dangerous than not having one.
The NRA wanted to completely shut down the the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control and the Dickey amendment was supposed to be a compromise. So they cut 90% of the funding.
So you can do research but if the results don't support the NRA narrative it's likely they will suggest the study is biased, is promoting gun control, and you can be damn sure they will try to come for your funding.
Yet how many laws were broken here? Not one single law would have changed anything. Your problem is it wasnt a black scary gun, so you have to make up lies. Look into southern countries, middle eastern countries. Your statement is a complete lie.
No the NRA was upset that the CDC started at a conclusion and pointed all studies to show that outcome.
Murder. That’s one. Firearms in school, that’s another. I’m sure there are countless others.
Not a single law would have changed anything? Wow, you must have traveled an infinite number of parallel universes to know that - what an amazing power to waste posting in here. The rest of your post is just gibberish.
You proved my point. Many many laws were broken. Please comprehend my paragraph before posting. All that jiberish are facts you cant prove wrong. Job well done.
I believe God frowns on suicide, but wait - it's not that (even though once God and country were removed, we are where we are - non believers not gonna believe).
Maybe a "gun free zone" sign would have stopped this (you know, since the shooter didn't give a crap about laws anyway).
Well, that's just a big ole pile of horseshit.
Here's the study that caused the "ban".
Now, I understand that science is a foreign concept to wingnuts but if you disagree with the study, you are more than welcome to rip into it from a science standpoint and demonstrate that the data don't support the conclusions or that the data are presented in a misleading way or that the study's conclusion is the result of bias. That's how SCIENCE works. What the NRA demanded - and what Congress allowed - was simply stripping the funding that the CDC had used to study gun violence and daring the CDC to risk even more cuts. You can dress that pile of dung up however you like but it's still going to stink.
What point might that be? Are you suggesting that if a crime is committed, it's useless to look at the circumstances and determine ways to prevent such a crime in the future? Because the 9/11 hijackers broke existing laws, there's no point in trying to prevent such an occurrence again by - for example - hardening cockpit doors?
Last edited:
The point that so many laws were broken to achieve this. Which proves that criminals dont follow laws. Which also means creating more will not stop a criminal. Its not a hard concept to grasp. Maybe reach a little farther.
Libs just want government to do something so they can say "we did something" - knowing it is like pissing into the wind and expecting to stay dry.
.
