Liberals lash out at father who lost daughter in Florida school shooting — see the vile reason why
Picture of a dad showing a photo of his daughter to someone, she died. This is before he knew she had been killed in the shooting. He committed the crime of wearing a Trump shirt though.
How do the weaselish pieces of dog shit respond?
"With vile comments.
“I have zero sympathy. Notice the tee shirt he’s wearing. He helped murder his own daughter,” one person said.
“‘She’s gone’ the man says as he proudly wears a Trump 20/20 shirt wow,” one person wrote.
“…….f**k it imma say it, THE IRONY. How bout them Trump policies,” another person added.
“his shirt. then the photo of his daughter. life is a full circle, your beliefs affect everyone,” another person said.
“I am sorry he lost his daughter however he voted for Trump and is suffering the consequences of his actions now,” another person said.
“The shirt I’m sorry I have to laugh,” one person said."
Yeah. Sickening. So much for tolerance.
Once again. The Leftist side of the Arguments prove that they are HORRIBLE PEOPLE!!!!!!!! Especially while on line.
Liberals (aka Leftists) ATTACK Parent of Victim....because He has WRONG Poltics on T-Shirt
Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
This thread is perhaps the most cancerous in KMC history. While I value brevity, I do want to address some contrary evidence, so please bear with me.According to the CRS(Congressional Research Service), Public Mass Shootings make up less than 1% of all firearm homicides each year. For this reason, it is improper to build gun policy around mass shootings. But even if this is the precedent, the data does not support the left's position. Contrary to what Vox might have you believe, the US ranks 11th in death rate due to mass shootings per capita.
I already made the point that mass shootings make up less than 1% of homicides in the US and I already made the point that we should build a policy that targets the 99%. So it's not that cancerous and you had better stop making the same points I do and pretend they are yours. estahuh
Originally posted by jaden101
Thank God its only been 6 with injuries and 3 with fatalities eh?That's practically none. Why even bother mentioning them.
This guy has a point.
Also, despite me shitting on you technology solution, I still think it is a good idea. It would definitely stop the low-hanging fruit (dumb and emotionally distraught shooters who do not take he time to remove safety features off the guns).
Your idea might prevent a significant percentage of mass shootings in the US. However, it will fail to prevent, probably, almost all of the other 99% of the shootings.
I don't know what the cost is. But the accidental deaths (where toddlers shoot themselves) is almost worth that regulation, alone. Probably will cost between $20-$100 per gun, depending on how strict the new technology regulations are. But I think if even 1 life per year is saved with this regulations, $100 per gun is worth it. Besides...it would generate more tax revenue. YIPPEEE!!!!
Originally posted by Robtard
Saw this, someone posted it on instragram:"Let's rename 'school' as 'uterus' so maybe Republican lawmakers will want to do something about the children dying inside them."
#gottem
Bad idea. Democrats will try to abort all of the children before 3PM.
Why 3PM? Because that's the time when children will naturally leave (be born) school (the uterus). Got kill'em before 3PM to make it seem more ethical. "This school belongs to us and you have no rights over my school!"
#gotem
#holyshitthesejokesarelowbrowasf*ck
Originally posted by dadudemon
I already made the point that mass shootings make up less than 1% of homicides in the US and I already made the point that we should build a policy that targets the 99%. So it's not that cancerous and you had better stop making the same points I do and pretend they are yours. estahuhThis guy has a point.
Also, despite me shitting on you technology solution, I still think it is a good idea. It would definitely stop the low-hanging fruit (dumb and emotionally distraught shooters who do not take he time to remove safety features off the guns).
Your idea might prevent a significant percentage of mass shootings in the US. However, it will fail to prevent, probably, almost all of the other 99% of the shootings.
I don't know what the cost is. But the accidental deaths (where toddlers shoot themselves) is almost worth that regulation, alone. Probably will cost between $20-$100 per gun, depending on how strict the new technology regulations are. But I think if even 1 life per year is saved with this regulations, $100 per gun is worth it. Besides...it would generate more tax revenue. YIPPEEE!!!!
Don't know the stats of the other gun homicides in terms of owner is perpetrator unfortunately. I imagine a significant portion of them would be non owner but accessible to perpetrator I. E the gun belongs to a family member.
Some would be stopped via the fingerprint safety and magnetic trigger lock methods. I'm guessing a significant proportion would take place out with geofenced zones and could be stopped.
I don't know how long it would take for a significant enough number of older guns without safety technology to be removed from circulation to have a substantial impact on gun homicide rates if it were legislated that all new guns manufactured and sold from tomorrow. You'd definitely never get them all due to collectors who tend to be more safety conscious with regards to secure storage and access to weapons. You'd obviously still have quite large numbers in the hands of serious criminals but over time their numbers would become less and as such their black market costs would go up hopefully to the point of being prohibitive even for serious offenders.
It might all be a moot point because of 3d printing technology advances anyway.