Report; More than 1,200 children in US killed by guns in the last year

[Gonzomin]

And, if the crime weapon was not a gun? Some people are selectively choosing
to ignore the root of the problem...it's the criminal, his or her self.

Guns make it easier and more deadly. Your home is less safe when it has guns. You are ignoring the point. 1200 killed and 6000 injured by guns.

[domer76]

There's no such thing as a society without guns, but your PTSD won't allow you to see that.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Sad fuck can’t address the question.

Without your popgun, how is life diminished?
Without your vehicle, how is life diminished?

[rjhenn]

Tell it to 1200 mothers and fathers.

You care more about your obsession with guns than you do about the children.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[rjhenn]

Not like USA

But it is not, as you claimed, a society without guns.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[rjhenn]

Hello rjhenn,



Sounds like an NRA talking point. Has any connection been shown? And more importantly, would it have been higher without the law?

The point being, there doesn't seem to be any evidence that it actually made things better.

I was delighted when I first got a phone that had voice recognition technology. I thought it was so cool, and a wonderful advancement. The more I learned about it, I felt betrayed. The SW was not installed on the device. Instead, the device sends the voice to a remote server (using data) and the remote server crunches it into text, then sends the text back to the device. I couldn't believe it. What a scam! To know that they could have simply installed the SW on the device, which would make it work better and not be dependent on a connection, but they chose to offer it this way instead just made me want to shake my head.

I realized what a scam it is. It is designed to get you hooked on a new needless habit which causes you to use lots of data. I have a minimum data plan and no I don't want to pay for an unlimited data plan for something I don't need. I used it for a few days back in the day until I saw the data spike, realized what was going on, then I never used it again. Even at my minimal data plan, I never even come close to using all the data. I could understand if high data usage was necessary, but this is contrived for profit. I do not appreciate such greedy engineering.

And now, to learn that they are saving everything you say into that device, (and can use it against you) to know that memory has become so cheap they can do that, and to realize that computing is exploding so fast and it is not known what kind of SW they will come up with in the future, nor what they will direct that SW to do with all the saved information on individuals, well, I just don't trust monstrous multi-national corporations anywhere near enough to want to take any more risks with my privacy than needed.

I also refuse to get the habit of using a phone for music. I have my own music and movie files, DVD's, CD's, Cassettes, and Vinyl collections, and maintain my own listening and watching selections and devices. I do not depend on a connection for my entertainment.

If the provider would even offer a lower level of data plan for a lower price I would be all over that.

I am ashamed of the way this country has become so weak and spineless that so many people are willing to pay so much for things they don't have to that these things now cost way too much.

American internet is approx half the speed of South Korean internet, and we pay about twice as much for what we get. It's a total rip-off. I wish we could all stand strong against these few giants and show them their place. I would totally be for a non-profit national public communications system organized and overseen by the government. It is my view that certain basic things that everyone uses should not be for-profit businesses. Such as health care, communications, energy, education, transportation, food, water, housing. Basic banking should be provided by the USPS. If for-profit companies wish to offer upgraded versions of these at a higher price that's fine. But human lifestyle has risen to the point that many basic things should be provided by all of us simply getting together and doing it as a large group, a nation-sized group. Of the people by the people for the people. That would have to be more efficient, and it would lead to a fantastic explosion of human advancement to not be limited for such basic items by wealth. Our arts and engineering would then explode, take a quantum leap forward toward amazing new possibilities.

Not sure what any of that had to do with my post. Of course, the righties will just scream "socialism!!!".

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[rjhenn]

Guns make it easier and more deadly. Your home is less safe when it has guns. You are ignoring the point. 1200 killed and 6000 injured by guns.

Which could be reduced with education, something the control freaks oppose. It used to be that almost every child was raised to be familiar with guns and almost every home had guns, and there weren't nearly as many problems.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[rjhenn]

Sad fuck can’t address the question.

Without your popgun, how is life diminished?
Without your vehicle, how is life diminished?

You're the one avoiding the question. Where is there a society without guns?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[moon]

You care more about your obsession with guns than you do about the children.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Have a go at demonstrating this nonsense.

[artichoke]

Almost 3,000 kids were killed by cars. Cars serve a public good (transportation) as do guns (killing people who are trying to rape, rob, murder you, or otherwise violate your rights).

Attachment 11326

Next BS fallacy please.

[domer76]

You're the one avoiding the question. Where is there a society without guns?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Tell us how the lives of people in countries like Japan, Canada, GB, Australia, etc are diminished because they are not awash in guns

[PoliTalker]

Hello rjhenn,

The point being, there doesn't seem to be any evidence that it actually made things better.

Not sure what any of that had to do with my post.

In response to

The large bold print just makes it easier to read. Although that doesn't show up on my phone, which is where I do most of this. I rarely change the print when posting on my phone because I don't see the option. Tapatalk has benefits and limitations.

Of course, the righties will just scream "socialism!!!".

That's what they do, like screaming that the sky is falling.

[PoliTalker]

Hello rjhenn,

The point being, there doesn't seem to be any evidence that it actually made things better.

Besides a drop in the suicide rate.

Not sure what any of that had to do with my post.

In response to

The large bold print just makes it easier to read. Although that doesn't show up on my phone, which is where I do most of this. I rarely change the print when posting on my phone because I don't see the option. Tapatalk has benefits and limitations.

Of course, the righties will just scream "socialism!!!".

That's what they do, like the little boy who cried wolf.

[rjhenn]

Hello rjhenn,



Besides a drop in the suicide rate.

What drop in the suicide rate? The figures I saw only showed an increase in the suicide rate.

That's what they do, like the little boy who cried wolf.

There's some of that on both sides, but the right does seem to be the source of most of it.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[rjhenn]

Tell us how the lives of people in countries like Japan, Canada, GB, Australia, etc are diminished because they are not awash in guns

None of them had any real problems with guns before they had any gun control laws. Countries that had such problems only got worse after imposing such laws. You still can't point to a single gun control law that has ever been demonstrated to have made things better.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[RB 60]

Hello rjhenn,



I think that is nothing more than a rehash of the old 'we just need more guns.'

So the way you see the problem, it is that not enough people are familiar with guns.

Which would naturally mean, not enough people have them.

There is no point in getting familiar with them if you're not going to have them.

It's OK. You can say so. You think everyone should have guns.

You probably like the Swiss law that requires it. You would like to see such a law in the US.

Whether or not they desire it, everyone should be forced to have a gun and to know how to use it.

And you think that will lead to fewer gun deaths?

That logic escapes me.

We already have more guns than people.

How many guns can a person shoot at one time?

One per ought to be enough.

but Noooooo!

We need MORE!

Sounds like the NRA talking about their mission to represent gun profiteers.

Because that is what they do.

No, it's not.

Yes. It sure wouldn't hurt telling kids firearms are not toys.

Why would it mean not enough people have them?

What's wrong with gaining a little knowledge?

No, not everyone. Why would you think that?

Forced to have guns? Nope. We don't believe anyone should be forced to own a firearm.

Firearm education would lead to fewer deaths. You liberals keep screaming "education," don't you?

Obviously, logic does escape you.

So?

Two (handguns).

One's enough? That's idiocy. It would be difficult to hunt rabbits with a 1911.

Of course you need more. Again, would you hunt bear with a .22?

Both your and the left's ignorance of the NRA is inexplicable. The NRA does not represent "gun profiteers."
Since you know so much about the NRA's "mission," it should be easy for you to prove your accusations.