A message issued by San Jose Police Chief Anthony Mata early Friday evening confirmed a police officer involved in a shooting at a taqueria last year is no longer on the force after an internal affairs investigation revealed he sent "disgusting" racist text messages related to the shooting.
The problem is normalization. The only-government-can-have-guns crowd pushes inaccurate perceptions to advance the agenda.
Black with a gun? Definitely get shot. White with a gun? Maybe get shot. Holding a gun at a place where someone did something with a gun? 110% you’re getting shot.
This all while about 50% of Americans own guns. It’s not like you simply assume every male is a rapist and kill them on sight just in case, or more accurately to my analogy charge every male within some distance of a rape occurring with a felony and put them on a list for life just to be safe.
The only-government-can-have-guns crowd pushes inaccurate perceptions to advance the agenda.
I’m curious about what inaccurate perceptions you think they’re pushing and what their agenda is. The inaccurate perception that we’re the only country in the world with this amount of resource who are facing this problem? Is their agenda… preventing needless death?
There are a lot of well-meaning liberals who have been instrumental in taking guns out of the hands of… Pretty much, exclusively themselves. Most right-wing gun nuts already have their guns, they won’t be giving them up anytime soon, and the American gun culture is incomparable to most other countries. If we could start over, less guns would work, but unfortunately we can’t.
That isn’t to say we shouldn’t enforce things like red flag laws, but other things like trying to limit high capacity magazines in liberal states is just ceding weapons to the wealthy conservatives who think they can shoot down the local Jewish space laser themselves.
I’m curious about what inaccurate perceptions you think they’re pushing and what their agenda is.
Is their agenda… preventing needless death?
Foundational assumptions about this debate. A political party that’s half of a government that killed 20,000,000 civilians in other countries over the last century is trying to convince you that you’d be better off without the ability to arm yourself to defend against rapists and the second amendment never had anything to do with discouraging tyranny here.
In addition to everything else you said, I think the problem is context in general. If there is an active shooter and three “good guys with a gun” whip out their weapons and start shooting, there are now four active shooters.
How often exactly does that happen? At worst what we’ve seen so far is either the shooter goes to the “sensitive place” next door where carry is prohibited or if a good guy stops the shooter and is still holding a weapon when the cops roll up, the good guy gets killed on sight.
The problem is normalization. The only-government-can-have-guns crowd pushes inaccurate perceptions to advance the agenda.
Black with a gun? Definitely get shot. White with a gun? Maybe get shot. Holding a gun at a place where someone did something with a gun? 110% you’re getting shot.
This all while about 50% of Americans own guns. It’s not like you simply assume every male is a rapist and kill them on sight just in case, or more accurately to my analogy charge every male within some distance of a rape occurring with a felony and put them on a list for life just to be safe.
I’m curious about what inaccurate perceptions you think they’re pushing and what their agenda is. The inaccurate perception that we’re the only country in the world with this amount of resource who are facing this problem? Is their agenda… preventing needless death?
There are a lot of well-meaning liberals who have been instrumental in taking guns out of the hands of… Pretty much, exclusively themselves. Most right-wing gun nuts already have their guns, they won’t be giving them up anytime soon, and the American gun culture is incomparable to most other countries. If we could start over, less guns would work, but unfortunately we can’t.
That isn’t to say we shouldn’t enforce things like red flag laws, but other things like trying to limit high capacity magazines in liberal states is just ceding weapons to the wealthy conservatives who think they can shoot down the local Jewish space laser themselves.
deleted by creator
I’m just saying that if you feel like implementing a particular policy, you might run into a second civil war. Depending on what the policy is.
deleted by creator
Foundational assumptions about this debate. A political party that’s half of a government that killed 20,000,000 civilians in other countries over the last century is trying to convince you that you’d be better off without the ability to arm yourself to defend against rapists and the second amendment never had anything to do with discouraging tyranny here.
In addition to everything else you said, I think the problem is context in general. If there is an active shooter and three “good guys with a gun” whip out their weapons and start shooting, there are now four active shooters.
How often exactly does that happen? At worst what we’ve seen so far is either the shooter goes to the “sensitive place” next door where carry is prohibited or if a good guy stops the shooter and is still holding a weapon when the cops roll up, the good guy gets killed on sight.