Posted on Jan 12, 2017
Why do the anti-gun groups continuously call an incident with a gun "gun violence", but with other objects, it's just "violence"?
25.4K
220
70
14
14
0
You never hear knife attacks called knife violence.
You never hear car rundowns being called vehicle violence.
You never hear baseball bats being called bat violence.
So why do the media and anti-gun group continue to call it "gun violence?"
You never hear car rundowns being called vehicle violence.
You never hear baseball bats being called bat violence.
So why do the media and anti-gun group continue to call it "gun violence?"
Firearms and Guns
Terrorism
Gun Control
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 26
1
1
0
Because it's trendy and most of them would soil themselves if they ever took a loaded firearm in hand let alone discharged one...a secondary discharge from their anus and urinary tract would be the likely result.
There is The off chance that some of these people who never made a considered political decision in their lives might say "this is fun as hell!"
Any converts moving away from diarrhea of the mouth and constipation of the brain would potentially create a situation inviting a few more of their kind to at least examine the brown matter inside the cerebral membrane perhaps allowing for a little more light to enter.
There is The off chance that some of these people who never made a considered political decision in their lives might say "this is fun as hell!"
Any converts moving away from diarrhea of the mouth and constipation of the brain would potentially create a situation inviting a few more of their kind to at least examine the brown matter inside the cerebral membrane perhaps allowing for a little more light to enter.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
1
1
0
The same reason all weapons are Assault Weapons when they are really Tactical Style weapons.....It is illegal for regular citizens to own assault weapons already (50 cal. machine gun, cannons ect)
(1)
(0)
SPC (Join to see)
SSG (Join to see) - Not at all. I very much enjoy shooting the M107, but I'm not going to pay $13,000 + $3 per round to get one, which is the mindset of most people. It's just too costly.
(2)
(0)
CW3 Harvey K.
SPC (Join to see) - I used an online "inflation calculator", and found out the $200 "fee" in the NFA of 1934 is equivalent to about $3,800 today.
Does anybody think that tax was intended as a means for the government to raise funds to support its operations? It was meant to minimize the ability of citizens to possess and use things that some people "didn't like".
Does anybody think that tax was intended as a means for the government to raise funds to support its operations? It was meant to minimize the ability of citizens to possess and use things that some people "didn't like".
(1)
(0)
SPC (Join to see)
CW3 Harvey K. - I think it was meant as a means to hold back the sale of certain firearms. If they wanted revenue then it wouldn't have been such a steep price.
(1)
(0)
CW3 Harvey K.
SPC (Join to see) - Exactly. I consider such use of taxing power unconstitutional. It perverts the lawful power of government to tax in order to pay the expenses of its services to the people. Taxes are not to be used by one faction of the people to discourage or eliminate behavior of another faction which they "disapprove" of.
In particular, no government has any rightful power to tax any "right of the people". The Supreme Court has ruled any poll tax as a violation of the right to vote. The same principle should apply to every "right of the people".
In particular, no government has any rightful power to tax any "right of the people". The Supreme Court has ruled any poll tax as a violation of the right to vote. The same principle should apply to every "right of the people".
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
Pew Research has been asking the question and following the results since at least 1993. Their latest survey (asking the question, "What do you think is more important – to protect the right of Americans to own guns, OR to control gun ownership?") was done in Aug 2016.
The results...
52% supported Gun Rights
46% supported Gun Cotrol
http://www.people-press.org/2016/08/26/gun-rights-vs-gun-control/#total
I'm pretty sure that half the Country doesn't live in walled communities with 24/7 armed guard protection. Therefore, we might want to re-design the straw man caricature we have of people who favor some form of gun control. (Beyond a firm grip, clear sight picture, and squeeze, don't jerk.) When you walk down the street, every other person you pass favors some form of gun control. They do NOT live in walled communities and they do NOT have armed guards.
I'm convinced that most of them could be persuaded to change their opinion if they were treated like reasonable human beings and not dismissed out of hand as effete elitists, trying to take our guns away. Arguments like, "pried from my cold, dead hands." are not compelling or persuasive.
The results...
52% supported Gun Rights
46% supported Gun Cotrol
http://www.people-press.org/2016/08/26/gun-rights-vs-gun-control/#total
I'm pretty sure that half the Country doesn't live in walled communities with 24/7 armed guard protection. Therefore, we might want to re-design the straw man caricature we have of people who favor some form of gun control. (Beyond a firm grip, clear sight picture, and squeeze, don't jerk.) When you walk down the street, every other person you pass favors some form of gun control. They do NOT live in walled communities and they do NOT have armed guards.
I'm convinced that most of them could be persuaded to change their opinion if they were treated like reasonable human beings and not dismissed out of hand as effete elitists, trying to take our guns away. Arguments like, "pried from my cold, dead hands." are not compelling or persuasive.
A Pew Research Center interactive exploring 20 years of data on public opinion about gun control vs. gun rights.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Ask the people on this site that insist on calling a mass shooting islamic terrorism when a muslim does it, but just call it a shooting when an antiabortion christian does it, instead of christian terrorism. I'm sure they can explain it.
(0)
(0)
TSgt (Join to see)
Even the media calls terrorism...terrorism initially. Once they find out the religion of the shooter, that identifies that person. Even when the anti-abortion guy shot the abortion doctor, once they found out the man was of Christian faith, they branded him a Christian terrorist. The right does it with Islam and the left does it with Christians. But what I find interesting is the left are full of atheists doing nothing but bashing Christians for their beliefs but they never bash Muslims for their beliefs. The right is branded as Islamophobic, I think the left should be branded at Christophobes
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google