Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/14/house-majority-whip-scalise-wounded-in-northern-virginia-shooting-reports-of-multiple-shots-fired-239539

Dont really keep up with the news, just happened to see this.

Crazy times Riv, Crazy times.

i knew you were going to try to turn this into a partisan issue with your ****ing links from TheBlaze.
hope you have a fun time, surtur. live it up, you disgusting POS.

Lol ah yes, how dare we report facts you triggered little snowflake.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
i knew you were going to try to turn this into a partisan issue with your ****ing links from TheBlaze.
hope you have a fun time, surtur. live it up, you disgusting POS.

Really? I find the media's radicalization of deranged leftist lunatics who are now shooting Congressmen to be more disgusting.

Originally posted by ESB -1138
Really? I find the media's radicalization of deranged leftist lunatics who are now shooting Congressmen to be more disgusting.

Why do you think he doesn't want it brought up? See, when a liberal reporter had violence done to them by a republican(the body slammer) they hooted and howled about how Trump was to blame.

They do not want someone to start wondering who on the left should get the blame for this.

Though make no mistake, some will still find a way to somehow blame Trump, even for this.

Originally posted by Surtur
Why do you think he doesn't want it brought up?

Because the Left has normalized political violence. The Senators, Governors, movie stars, media, and everyone else will call anybody on the Right a Nazi and then say it's okay to punch Nazis and if you repeat that enough, well, soon enough this will happen because now the shooter believes he's justified.

Do they have the shooter in custody?

http://tinyurl.com/ybybd9d5

Originally posted by ESB -1138
Because the Left has normalized political violence. The Senators, Governors, movie stars, media, and everyone else will call anybody on the Right a Nazi and then say it's okay to punch Nazis and if you repeat that enough, well, soon enough this will happen because now the shooter believes he's justified.

Makes sense, and given how quick the whining over making this partisan took I'm guessing the lessons that should be learned from this won't be learned.

But it seems nobody was killed this time, and they got lucky one of the guys had Capitol Police there as part of security.

seems he was a bernie supporter, so i guess that means that bernie supporters are typically homicidal madmen. right, opportunistic forum scumtrolls?

https://www.facebook.com/jthodgkinson

Bernie's attitude towards the establishment is normalizing violence against members of the establishment. This is what a post-Bernie America looks like.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
seems he was a bernie supporter, so i guess that means that bernie supporters are typically homicidal madmen. right, opportunistic forum scumtrolls?

https://www.facebook.com/jthodgkinson

I won't have you impugning the good name of Bernie. Not on my watch.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Bernie's attitude towards the establishment is normalizing violence against members of the establishment. This is what a post-Bernie America looks like.

Right

Originally posted by Quincy
Do they have the shooter in custody?

It's unclear if the shooter was taken into custody or shot on sight.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
seems he was a bernie supporter, so i guess that means that bernie supporters are typically homicidal madmen. right, opportunistic forum scumtrolls?

https://www.facebook.com/jthodgkinson

Meanwhile, the Left is celebrating the shooting. The Left has maintained for years that right-wing rhetoric is responsible for everything from the Oklahoma City bombing to the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords. If we use their own standard, that rhetoric is responsible for violence, then the hard left has something to answer for.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Bernie's attitude towards the establishment is normalizing violence against members of the establishment. This is what a post-Bernie America looks like.

What I find fascinating are some of the attitudes here because first of all if this was Dems shot and the shooter had asked "Are those Dems or Repubs?" prior to doing it that detail would definitely be fair game to mention and if the shooter turned out to be a Trump supporter this would also be fair game to mention.

In fact "Trump supporter shoots Democrats" would no doubt be the headline for some media outlets.

Originally posted by Surtur
What I find fascinating are some of the attitudes here because first of all if this was Dems shot and the shooter had asked "Are those Dems or Repubs?" prior to doing it that detail would definitely be fair game to mention and if the shooter turned out to be a Trump supporter this would also be fair game to mention.

In fact "Trump supporter shoots Democrats" would no doubt be the headline for some media outlets.

Well a Bernie-supporting, Trump-hating Democrat shots up a GOP baseball game after confirming that they were Republicans...and many on the Left are blaming Republicans for it. Of course.

Originally posted by Quincy
Right
I'm not serious about my statement. I would've gladly taken Bernie over ****ing Trump or Hillary. Just pointing out the weird double standard.

The dickbag is dead, so good news there

Oh we do have this:

Alleged DC shooter was reportedly a left-wing climate activist who hated Trump, Koch brothers

Good to see the usual suspects didn't waste anytime politicizing and crying 'the Leftist!" over another gun tragedy. Stay classy

i guess that means we need to apologize for being left-leaning.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
yup. people on the left have to own every single nutter, but special snowflake can selectively disown armies of right wing lunatics. special rules for the special baby

Originally posted by Robtard
Good to see the usual suspects didn't waste anytime politicizing and crying 'the Leftist!" over another gun tragedy. Stay classy

Actually the people who didn't waste time politicizing would be the dipshits who tried to use this as an excuse to whine about gun control.

Like the democratic governor of Virginia sadly wasted no time lol. No doubt he will be called out on it.

How silly to bring up gun laws and the issues therein right after another attempted mass killing involving guns. Crazy, that.

Clearly we need to focus on "leftist" and "liberals" like you did here, sport.

Originally posted by Robtard
How silly to bring up gun laws and the issues therein right after another attempted mass killing involving guns. Crazy, that.

Clearly we need to focus on "leftist" and "liberals" like you did here, sport.

Lol so it's time to decide if it's okay to politicize tragedies Robby. It's an all or nothing thing.

But yes I'd say the violence inspired by some on the left that lead to this is worthy of discussion. It's certainly worthy of discussion when folk feel Trump inspired some violence.

Are you dense? A governor talking about gun laws after yet another shooting in his state makes sense.

You instantly going "liberals!!1!" while using the victims as a podium is just sad and pathetic.

Pretty miraculous that no one died.

Scalise is in critical condition

More shootings in the States? Isn't anybody getting fed up yet?

Originally posted by Darth Thor
More shootings in the States? Isn't anybody getting fed up yet?

Bingo

Originally posted by Darth Thor
More shootings in the States? Isn't anybody getting fed up yet?

i'm fed up that we can't even talk about taking semi-auto rifles away from people with mental illness. that's how crazy this has gotten. it's to the point where if you suggest "why don't we only allow criminally insane people to own pistols/shotguns/bolt-action rifles" you're considered an ultra-progressive libtard.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
More shootings in the States? Isn't anybody getting fed up yet? Good Post!

Originally posted by Robtard
Are you dense? A governor talking about gun laws after yet another shooting in his state makes sense.

You instantly going "liberals!!1!" while using the victims as a podium is just sad and pathetic.

Lol I'm going to say it one more time: it's an all or nothing thing. Either it's okay to politicize a tragedy or it's not. I want those on the left to choose. I don't want them whining when they think Trump is trying to do it after yet another terror attack yet thinking it's okay when it suits their agenda.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
More shootings in the States? Isn't anybody getting fed up yet?

If we say we're fed up is some dingus gonna come run in here trying to shift the convo to one about white supremacy?

I'm just glad that most of these wackjobs suck at shooting.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
More shootings in the States? Isn't anybody getting fed up yet?

Funny, the right said the same thing about the london murders, and they were called racist, xenophobic, and all type of nasty names.

Originally posted by SquallX
Funny, the right said the same thing about the london murders, and they were called racist, xenophobic, and all type of nasty names.

because that's EXACTLY THE SAME as naked bigotry.

Originally posted by Surtur
Lol I'm going to say it one more time: it's an all or nothing thing. Either it's okay to politicize a tragedy or it's not. I want those on the left to choose. I don't want them whining when they think Trump is trying to do it after yet another terror attack yet thinking it's okay when it suits their agenda.


Repeating a faulty comparison is just that, sport.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
i knew you were going to try to turn this into a partisan issue with your ****ing links from TheBlaze.
hope you have a fun time, surtur. live it up, you disgusting POS.

Surt's a "Point Of Sale"? Because he tries to sell his position to everyone, I guess? (Can never keep up with modern day slang... Stopped trying in the 1970's.)

Anyways, just heard about this on satelite radio news. Tuned in during audio of the shooting, and wondered if I walked into a live shooting of the news crew..

Am glad no lives were lost, except for the shooter.

Originally posted by Robtard
Good to see the usual suspects didn't waste anytime politicizing and crying 'the Leftist!" over another gun tragedy. Stay classy
I knew what i was posting, and where i was posting it, so i'm not surprised.

Originally posted by Robtard
Repeating a faulty comparison is just that, sport.

Except there is no faulty comparison. Trump, after a terror attack, made a comment about his travel ban. Then we had dipshits going "derp! politicizing a tragedy!". Now when leftists do it the excuse is "well...when SHOULD you politicize a shooting?".

Robert, how did Bernie Sanders react in 2011 when Giffords was shot? You see he just denounced violence this time. How'd he react before? Let me refresh your memory:

What Bernie Sanders did after Giffords 2011 shooting is coming back to haunt him

He kinda seems like a piece of shit, doesn't he?

#NotAllGuns

wow you sure made a fool out of that strawman. i'd hate to be him right now.

Gotta love the right wing double standard

"Just because two radical Trump supporters beat up a homeless Hispanic American man and urinated on him doesn't mean they were motivated by Trump's rhetoric"
Also Trump supporters
"That radical leftist shooter who shot those Republican congressmen was definitely motivated by liberal rhetoric"

how is politicizing a shooting for a pro-gun control stance different from politicizing terrorism for a stance that advocates for policies or dialogues to deal with terrorism?

Originally posted by Lestov16
"Just because two radical Trump supporters beat up a homeless Hispanic American man and urinated on him doesn't mean they were motivated by Trump's rhetoric"

Trump does need to tune down his rhetoric and he has since winning the presidency. I was always against Trump for saying things like punch a protestor and I'll pay for your court fees. It was a disgrace for him to invoke such rhetoric and was just another reason why I didn't vote for him.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
how is politicizing a shooting for a pro-gun control stance different from politicizing terrorism for a stance that advocates for policies or dialogues to deal with terrorism? America has a well documented gun violence problem, so using yet another shooting to go "look, we might want to take a look at our gun laws" is sensible.

Trump using a terror attack that happened outside of the US and by people of that same country to push his travel ban is not sensible.

Now if immigrants from whatever "terrorist countries" were to come on over and commit an attack, that would be a sensible instance for Trump to push his selective 'this Muslims; not that Muslim' ban. Though he's still a clown by not including Saudi Arabia, considering 9/11.

Originally posted by Lestov16
Gotta love the right wing double standard

"Just because two radical Trump supporters beat up a homeless Hispanic American man and urinated on him doesn't mean they were motivated by Trump's rhetoric"
Also Trump supporters
"That radical leftist shooter who shot those Republican congressmen was definitely motivated by liberal rhetoric"

Bingo

Originally posted by Emperordmb
how is politicizing a shooting for a pro-gun control stance different from politicizing terrorism for a stance that advocates for policies or dialogues to deal with terrorism?

(1) We don't know how he got the gun. Demanding for stricter gun control doesn't do much when we're unsure how he acquired the firearm.

(2) The guy is from Illinois which already has heavy gun control laws. And Virginia already has background checks and it's illegal to conceal a long gun.

(3) We now have more the 56% guns in the hands of privately-owned firearms in the US since 1993 and yet the gun homicide rate has declined in that same amount of time by 49%.

(4) Washington, DC's gun ban worsened the city's homicide rate.

(5) Gun bans in Australia and Britain didn't work. In Britain's case, the Crime Research Prevention Center found that after the gun ban was implemented, there was initially a severe increase in the homicide rate, followed by a gradual decline once Britain beefed up their police force. However, there has only been one year where the homicide rate was lower than it was pre-ban. Additionally, there was an 89% spike in gun crime from 1998/1999 to 2008/2009, all of which occurred after the gun ban.

(6) The vast, vast, VAST majority of mass shootings occur in gun-free zones.

(7) And the reason why it's different is because we have a right to self preservation.

Rhetoric is not directly responsible for violence unless it advocates for violence. Radical jihadism does advocate for violence; the bulk of its supporters know this and support the violence; a solid contingent of its followers participate in violence. And that "Muslim" ban isn't a "Muslim" ban considering that out of the 10 most populous Muslim countries in the world, only one would have been effected.

Originally posted by ESB -1138
(1) We don't know how he got the gun. Demanding for stricter gun control doesn't do much when we're unsure how he acquired the firearm.

(2) The guy is from Illinois which already has heavy gun control laws. And Virginia already has background checks and it's illegal to conceal a long gun.

(3) We now have more the 56% guns in the hands of privately-owned firearms in the US since 1993 and yet the gun homicide rate has declined in that same amount of time by 49%.

(4) Washington, DC's gun ban worsened the city's homicide rate.

(5) Gun bans in Australia and Britain didn't work. In Britain's case, the Crime Research Prevention Center found that after the gun ban was implemented, there was initially a severe increase in the homicide rate, followed by a gradual decline once Britain beefed up their police force. However, there has only been one year where the homicide rate was lower than it was pre-ban. Additionally, there was an 89% spike in gun crime from 1998/1999 to 2008/2009, all of which occurred after the gun ban.

(6) The vast, vast, VAST majority of mass shootings occur in gun-free zones.

(7) And the reason why it's different is because we have a right to self preservation.
I was actually questioning the double standards of those who think bringing politics up when terrorism happens is immoral but that politicizing shootings is somehow moral, not the other way around, but since you're saying politicizing terrorism is okay but politicizing shootings isn't, I fundamentally disagree with you there too.

And I'm not even necessarily advocating gun control when I say this, all I'm saying is that it's a double standard for people to say it's immoral to politicize one of them but immoral to politicize the other. Whether or not the policies they propose are good or bad or whether or not you can out-debate them on the issue in question is irrelevant to whether or not it's morally wrong or justified to bring politics into a discussion about a recent tragedy.

Originally posted by ESB -1138
(5) Gun bans in Australia and Britain didn't work. In Britain's case, the Crime Research Prevention Center found that after the gun ban was implemented, there was initially a severe increase in the homicide rate, followed by a gradual decline once Britain beefed up their police force. However, there has only been one year where the homicide rate was lower than it was pre-ban. Additionally, there was an 89% spike in gun crime from 1998/1999 to 2008/2009, all of which occurred after the gun ban. http://i.imgur.com/RMVt0Fa.png

hmm

You should take a look at Japan's gun crime statistics.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
http://i.imgur.com/RMVt0Fa.png

hmm

I'm no super-scientist, but those bars go from higher to lower it seems

Originally posted by Emperordmb
I was actually questioning the double standards of those who think bringing politics up when terrorism happens is immoral but that politicizing shootings is somehow moral, not the other way around, but since you're saying politicizing terrorism is okay but politicizing shootings isn't, I fundamentally disagree with you there too.

And I'm not even necessarily advocating gun control when I say this, all I'm saying is that it's a double standard for people to say it's immoral to politicize one of them but immoral to politicize the other. Whether or not the policies they propose are good or bad or whether or not you can out-debate them on the issue in question is irrelevant to whether or not it's morally wrong or justified to bring politics into a discussion about a recent tragedy.

Sorry. That one was to address Robtard and my second post (the one right below) was to address your question.

Originally posted by Robtard
I'm no super-scientist, but those bars go from higher to lower it seems

A 2008 report and a 2007 report actually breaks down all that information quite nicely. But then again, you say the US has a gun problem despite gun violence on a continual decline despite a huge increase in the number of guns in the country.

Originally posted by ESB -1138
A 2008 report and a 2007 report actually breaks down all that information quite nicely. That stat is for the UK, not Australia. Here's another:

http://i.imgur.com/cNu0V5i.png

Originally posted by Robtard
I'm no super-scientist, but those bars go from higher to lower it seems I too am noticing a trend.

Originally posted by ESB -1138
Rhetoric is not directly responsible for violence unless it advocates for violence. Radical jihadism does advocate for violence; the bulk of its supporters know this and support the violence; a solid contingent of its followers participate in violence.

And that "Muslim" ban isn't a "Muslim" ban considering that out of the 10 most populous Muslim countries in the world, only one would have been effected.

There's a line, one can not directly say "go harm them" and still advocate violence. eg demonizing an entire group repeatedly and painting them as a cause of another groups woes can be tantamount to inciting violence.

Trump's called it a Muslim ban. So take it up with him.

Originally posted by ESB -1138
A 2008 report and a 2007 report actually breaks down all that information quite nicely. But then again, you say the US has a gun problem despite gun violence on a continual decline despite a huge increase in the number of guns in the country.

The US does have a gun violence problem; this is a factual fact. It going down a blip doesn't negate the problem still existing. It just shows a decline (which is a good thing)

It's like saying you're cured of cancer because someone's lung cancer is regressing, but they've still got malignant tumors in their lungs.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
That stat is for the UK, not Australia. Here's another:

http://i.imgur.com/cNu0V5i.png

I too am noticing a trend.
I so do like seeing Japan's stats.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
I so do like seeing Japan's stats. It's pretty dreamy, yeah.

Especially if you're in the Yakuza.

Our criminal elements are underground and in constant competition with each other, but them, they're out in the open and have a monopoly on everything. Corner offices, semi-legit status, and they've assassinated politicians openly.

No one armed to worry about, after all.

Yes, I'm sure Japan's criminal elements would be very upset if they were allowed easy access to firearms.

Yikes, the past few weeks for the NYT have not been kind.

Backlash forces NY Times to issue major correction to controversial GOP baseball shooting editorial

Originally posted by Lestov16
Gotta love the right wing double standard

"Just because two radical Trump supporters beat up a homeless Hispanic American man and urinated on him doesn't mean they were motivated by Trump's rhetoric"
Also Trump supporters
"That radical leftist shooter who shot those Republican congressmen was definitely motivated by liberal rhetoric"

Gotta love the stupid bullshit from leftists who feel it's okay to whine at Trump and hold him accountable for things his supporters do, but who cry and cry over it when that gets directed at them.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
Yes, I'm sure Japan's criminal elements would be very upset if they were allowed easy access to firearms.

They can get weapons just fine. It's everyone else they'd be upset about.

But I'm sure a gunless, homocide low state of oppression looks find to your common leftest.. Provided they're not the one's living in such a state.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
I was actually questioning the double standards of those who think bringing politics up when terrorism happens is immoral but that politicizing shootings is somehow moral, not the other way around, but since you're saying politicizing terrorism is okay but politicizing shootings isn't, I fundamentally disagree with you there too.

And I'm not even necessarily advocating gun control when I say this, all I'm saying is that it's a double standard for people to say it's immoral to politicize one of them but immoral to politicize the other. Whether or not the policies they propose are good or bad or whether or not you can out-debate them on the issue in question is irrelevant to whether or not it's morally wrong or justified to bring politics into a discussion about a recent tragedy.

It's different when they do it, that is it lol. My favorite is that moron Shaun King. Who, yes, has in the past said Trump should be held responsible for the shit his supporters do.

Guess if he thinks Bernie is somehow responsible for this? It would be a consistent line of thought, no? So of course he...ha just kidding, he knows Bernie isn't responsible. When I say he knows I mean...dude knows: he said he knows with complete confidence this ain't on Bernie. See, aren't you glad that was cleared up?

Shaun King is the white guy who pretends to be half-black right?

pls keep your identity politics out of this man.

Originally posted by cdtm
They can get weapons just fine. It's everyone else they'd be upset about.

But I'm sure a gunless, homocide low state of oppression looks find to your common leftest.. Provided they're not the one's living in such a state. Right. And this is why Japan has the lowest amount of gun crime in the world?

But sure, a country in which people aren't allowed killing weapons and don't kill people with them looks nice and rosy to me.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
Right. And this is why Japan has the lowest amount of gun crime in the world?

But sure, a country in which people aren't allowed killing weapons and don't kill people with them looks nice and rosy to me.

As Rob would say, Bingo!

Originally posted by Beniboybling
Right. And this is why Japan has the lowest amount of gun crime in the world?

But sure, a country in which people aren't allowed killing weapons and don't kill people with them looks nice and rosy to me.

Listen, there is absolute zero proof that regulating or making something outright illegal has any impact on how said item(s) is more or less accessible. Stupid Libtard!

^^^you're right on that one, Francis.
Make simething illegal, it just gives criminals a new revenue stream.

You missed the point again, sore-one

It's a good thing we made drugs illegal, or else we might have a drug problem in the U.S.

Originally posted by Robtard
You missed the point again, sore-one
Not at all, Francis, i just addressed the better one you apparently made by accident (broken clock and all that...).
Its cool though, aside from condolences to the victims, and amusement at how crappy the posters here are, i'm not looking to post in this thread.
You're safe.

Originally posted by riv6672
Not at all, Francis, i just addressed the better one you apparently made by accident (broken clock and all that...).
Its cool though, aside from condolences to the victims, and amusement at how crappy the posters here are, i'm not looking to post in this thread.
You're safe.

Strawman bashing and a pretend victory over a non-existent fight on my end. Congratulations are in order I guess, well done, sir.

Funny how 1 minute after posting the above you ran to the Gen Chat forum to post
Originally posted by Robtard
He's HUGE in Japan

#triggered



But i digress,
You guys go with the debate. I'm happy to have provided a platform for duscussion.

That post was to Piggle and Walshy (who I talk to several days a week), not you, you strange old man.

#triggered

Predictably, the New Haven Register had an editorial on gun control. Sure, why not? It gets people reading, and it will never be solved no matter your opinion (They will NEVER ban guns, and they likely won't enact any kind of federal standards that step on states rights. And you can ALWAYS argue there should be stronger laws, no matter what currently exists..) Basically, for controversy peddlers, it's the gift that keeps on giving.

They also didn't even have the shooting as the main story.. It was in a little strip to the lower left hand corner, underneath another story about an arsonist looking for another trial after getting convicted...

I get it's a paper dedicated to "New Haven, CT", but that's just ridiculous..

Originally posted by Silent Master
It's a good thing we made drugs illegal, or else we might have a drug problem in the U.S.
If you're being serious then that's stupid.

"It's a good thing we made crime illegal, or else we might have a crime problem in the U.S."

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
"It's a good thing we made crime illegal, or else we might have a crime problem in the U.S."

That's not wrong.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
If you're being serious then that's stupid.

My point



























Your head

Originally posted by cdtm
That's not wrong. cool, i thought the u.s. had the largest prison population in the world. but now that that's all apparently sorted out, what do we do with all those empty prisons? maybe convert them to homeless shelters?

^^^they're next to get rid of.
Originally posted by Silent Master
My point



























Your head
That was a great statement, though.

http://i65.tinypic.com/3togk.png

You are right it's wrong to blame liberals. It's not like they'd ever blame those on the right for acts of violence committed by others.

Sorry Boromir's concise and factual points ruined the skewed narrative you have tried to push in here since page one.

Originally posted by Robtard
Sorry Boromir's concise and factual points ruined the skewed narrative you have tried to push in here since page one.

The blame shifting hasn't ruined anything, but moving on...lol the NYT keeps digging themselves a deeper hole:

NY Times Doubles Down on Stupid

Steve Scalise is back in the hospital in intensive care due to an infection.