truth on hold Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 (edited) I don't ever see you don't mention Chicago. Why is that? Do blacks killing blacks not mean as much to you? You mention Sandy Hook, an event that happens on occassion, but as the president noted so well in his speech last week, Sandy Hooks happen ALL THE TIME in Chicago. But all you ever mention is Sandy Hook. Do you not CARE about blacks killing blacks? Because you never, ever, ever mention it. It's interesting because as much as this president is a dumbass, he finally started making sense in Chicago last week. It's not just about the guns. It's other things, including the breakdown of family and departure of role models, so young black children don't find confirmation of their existence from black thugs selling drugs and murdering teenage kids. And here's the worst part; Obama goes to Chicago because a young girl who performed at one of his inauguration balls was gunned down in Chicago right after he was sworn in. Michelle goes to the girl's funeral. Obama goes with a speech. All of this is from the heart. And what happens in a city with some of the strictest gun laws in the US???? This headline: Chicago Teen Killed Hours After Sister Attends Obama Speech On Gun Violence http://tv.msnbc.com/...n-gun-violence/ Get with the program, JT6P, because if this was REALLY a problem with you, you'd realize Sandy Hook is not even close to the real problems we face when it comes to guns. Sure I care, but 20 deaths in a single event are greater than 1, so that's why Sandy is the more often cited recent example. Your attempt to draw a racial angle is just downright silly. If you want to go that route, why didnt you call out Rob's (Gun House) when in earlier discussions he said you had to remove gang violence to "adjust" for the "real" level of gun murder in the US (or some crap like that). Something I objected to. Want to see a real hypocrit on race and gun violence? Look here: http://www.targetcbs...hp/1/mirror.jpg Edited February 19, 2013 by Joe_the_6_pack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 I don't know. I see someone saying (rightfully) Sandy Hook---20 whites shot and killed---terrible. Chicago 500 blacks shot and killed-------crickets. I wouldn't presume to call another poster a racist, but I would point out that in another era DaveinElma would be an abolitionist compared to someone who acted as if 20 white's deaths were more noteworthy than 500 blacks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 I don't know. I see someone saying (rightfully) Sandy Hook---20 whites shot and killed---terrible. Chicago 500 blacks shot and killed-------crickets. I wouldn't presume to call another poster a racist, but I would point out that in another era DaveinElma would be an abolitionist compared to someone who acted as if 20 white's deaths were more noteworthy than 500 blacks. In Joe's twilight zone world, 20 whites dead = more guns= more dead=more NRA dollars. That's the reasoning. And he will, of course, not explain that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 Sure I care, but 20 deaths in a single event are greater than 1, so that's why Sandy is the more often cited recent example. Your attempt to draw a racial angle is just downright silly. If you want to go that route, why didnt you call out Rob's (Gun House) when in earlier discussions he said you had to remove gang violence to "adjust" for the "real" level of gun murder in the US (or some crap like that). Something I objected to. Want to see a real hypocrit on race and gun violence? Look here: http://www.targetcbs...hp/1/mirror.jpg You can challenge Rob's thoughts all you want. My point with your posts is that you hold true to the typical progressive low-hanging fruit that Sandy Hook would have never happened had we more gun control laws; it would have never happened had there been a law that only permitted certain guns to shoot, say, 1 round before you have to reload. And you try to justify this thinking by, again, using the always-predicatable progressive rant of "Children were killed! It's so sad!" No schitt, Sherlock. But whether you like it or not, the dude who killed the Sandy Hook kids was going to kill them regardless of what restrictions you try to put on guns. Likewise, the girl from the Obama inauguration, and the sister of the little girl at the Obama speech, were going to be gunned down regardless of what restrictions you try to put on guns. You may try to argue "Well, if it will only save one life," but you can't because you don't count lives one at a time. You only seem to count them in groups of 20 because you somehow think THAT helps makes your point. And you may try to argue "Think of the children," but that's because you similarly have no use for the idea of "Think of the child." The minute you stop trying to make this about you and your pie-in-the-sky dream of reducing the 2nd Amendment to being about single-load cap guns, the sooner you'll see the things that will truly help reduce random gun violence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 NRA wet dream: more guns = more dead people = more guns = more $$$$$$$$$ = ...... you get the picture You're a moron. And any reasonable person would have no idea what the hell you are rambling about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 You're a moron. And any reasonable person would have no idea what the hell you are rambling about. Unfortunately none of the gun lovers in this thread meet the definition of "reasonable" so your statement can't be tested Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 Unfortunately none of the gun lovers in this thread meet the definition of "reasonable" so your statement can't be tested Can you point out where all of the gun lovers in this thread are not reasonable? Please be specific to each of the gun lovers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 Unfortunately none of the gun lovers in this thread meet the definition of "reasonable" so your statement can't be tested Ah, it's JoeTheSelfProclaimedLibertarian out to extend government and limit constitutional rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 Sure I care, but 20 deaths in a single event are greater than 1, so that's why Sandy is the more often cited recent example. Your attempt to draw a racial angle is just downright silly. If you want to go that route, why didnt you call out Rob's (Gun House) when in earlier discussions he said you had to remove gang violence to "adjust" for the "real" level of gun murder in the US (or some crap like that). Something I objected to. Want to see a real hypocrit on race and gun violence? Look here: http://www.targetcbs...hp/1/mirror.jpg Is 20 deaths at one time more tragic than a single homicide occurring 500 times? Looks the scale you use to value human life is a tad skewed. Sandy Hook remains the exception. I suggest you familiarize yourself with the rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 Is 20 deaths at one time more tragic than a single homicide occurring 500 times? Looks the scale you use to value human life is a tad skewed. Sandy Hook remains the exception. I suggest you familiarize yourself with the rule. Tragedy is measured by the subjective emotional impact it has on the viewer. Your objective analysis has no place in this discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts