Is mass hysteria caused by the media freedom of speech?

Absolutely not.

I tried to talk about this issue with some work colleagues and one said, "Americans love to defend guns," before I launched into my thoughts that we could enact reforms without ending the second amendment.

The colleague in question turned to the others and was like, "See what I mean?"

- - - - -
I think that undoing the second amendment is unrealistic and unattainable. But gun control legislation has majority bipartisan support among Americans.

There's so much more we could be doing than our current wild west philosophy which could have a genuine impact.

I don't understand those who argue against these common sense reforms.

On Friday 8/23/19 - 12:15:59 AM amaqdrinker wrote: Is mass hysteria caused by the media freedom of speech?

It’s not hysteria to yell “Fire!” in a theatre when there is a fire.

not at all. most people who own guns are law-abiding citizens. while some may have issues and concerns with the attempted stripping of the second amendment, i don't think any law-abiding gun owner would carry out a mass shooting.

the "government is after my guns" crowd are usually people who have other issues. they need help with those issues.

On Friday 8/23/19 - 12:15:59 AM amaqdrinker wrote: Is mass hysteria caused by the media freedom of speech?

On Friday 8/23/19 - 12:15:11 PM Abzurd wrote: It’s not hysteria to yell “Fire!” in a theatre when there is a fire.

First there is a mountain then there is no mountain then there is...

Fanning the flames of discontent is another good album.

I prefer "my words say nothing cuz I got nothing to say".

I don't think any use of firearms is an acceptable by-product of the right to bear arms.

On Friday 8/23/19 - 3:53:28 PM Spoonerism wrote: I prefer "my words say nothing cuz I got nothing to say".

Ryan started the fire!

On Friday 8/23/19 - 12:54:29 PM Inquizitor2 wrote: i don't think any law-abiding gun owner would carry out a mass shooting.

asides from the obviously law-breaking act of carrying out a mass shooting, do you genuinely think that no mass shooters have a prior criminal record?

or are you just doing the redundant thing of saying that people who break the law have broken the law

How does Inquizitor consistently manage to say the dumbest possible things in any given situation?

Plenty of mass shooters were "law-abiding gun owners" right up to the point where they decided to do things like shoot up a Wal-Mart because they hate Mexicans.

The idea that you can rule out every currently law-abiding gun owner as a potential mass shooter is idiotic, counter-factual, and dangerous.

i meant to say 'have no prior criminal record' but i think that should be obvious
what bird said

The right to bear arms makes sense in rural areas where police protection is often lacking.

...not to mention the presence of wildlife that can threaten their livelihood and sometimes their safety.

On Saturday 8/24/19 - 11:24:55 AM birdsong4j wrote: How does Inquizitor consistently manage to say the dumbest possible things in any given situation? Plenty of mass shooters were "law-abiding gun owners" right up to the point where they decided to do things like shoot up a Wal-Mart because they hate Mexicans. The idea that you can rule out every currently law-abiding gun owner as a potential mass shooter is idiotic, counter-factual, and dangerous.

adam lanza stole his mother's guns from what i remember. most gun owners don't break the law otherwise a lot of people would be in jail and we already have a prison overpopulation problem.

there are other issues going on if you decide to carry out a mass shooting. i own six guns myself. the thought never crossed my mind at any point in time.

Yes, obviously SOME people who commit mass shootings do things like steal the guns. But a lot also don't. That you can't understand that is worrying.

Of the most recent high-profile mass shootings:
El Paso - legally owned guns, no criminal record
Dayton - legally owned guns, only minor traffic infractions
Garlic festival - gun is not legally sold in CA, but was legally purchased in NV, where it is not restricted. Unknown criminal history, but nothing big enough where he couldn't buy the gun thru an FFL.

You obviously don't read the stories that go along with these well enough to understand that a LOT of the shooters were "law-abiding gun owners" up until they weren't. Just because you own guns and have never thought about doing this doesn't mean you can extend that to every other legal gun owner. The fact that you think you can is just crazy.

Batsh*t

So not valid to suggest our heightened cultural tension may not be as simple as guns vs no guns? And has nothing to do with a fear based political media?

I think it has more to do with this




and this




oh, and this

but yeah, I'm sure it's tHe PoLiTiCaL mEdIa that's the problem

Those photos didn’t load.

On Sunday 8/25/19 - 3:52:26 PM birdsong4j wrote: but yeah, I'm sure it's tHe PoLiTiCaL mEdIa that's the problem

It might be part of a complicated problem that does not have a simple solution.

No, the problem is actually simple. We have more guns than people, it's unbelievably easy to get a gun, and no other advanced country has the problem with mass shootings that we do, because they don't have nearly as many guns per capita.

It wouldn’t affect me in the slightest if I couldn’t buy a gun.

You just won’t get my vote if you think legislation is the solution to complex problems. That’s all I’m saying.

Anti reg. Not complicated. Kind of a pessimist about it living in New York.