Virginia shooting

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?

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.

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.

hmm

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

Originally posted by Beniboybling

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.

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

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:

I too am noticing a trend.