As a person living in America are you starting to get nervous and a bit scared of being out in public do to all these mass random shootings? (Page 2)
Click "Show More" for your mentions
Most Helpful Opinion(mho) Rate.
Learn more
Learn more
We're glad to see you liked this post.
You can also add your opinion below!
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
38Opinion
Yes!! This is why I hardly go anywhere anymore. I'm going to start doing groceries through Amazon now
Its a messed up current reality, but we just don't know when these monsters are going to do their rampage.
And sometimes they are willing to drive from out of town to do it too, big city, small city or wherever.
Very messed up. Have you seen that boy who shot up the school? he was dressing as a woman on his instagram? That's a sign of mental illness right there. What man walks around in skirts. I don't know when these people will understand that gay/tranny/fag shit is a mental illness
But America praises that weird shit
Never saw his Instagram posts..
Yeah he a cross dressing fag I'll post it
Do it.
how many mass shootings in the last year? 5 years? 10 years? 50 years... you can NEVER eliminate guns in America, they are here to stay... there are More guns than People... let's talk about Real solutions...
@goaded as I said... let's talk about solutions...
OK, so why have the numbers increased hugely, even though the overall murder rate has been going down since about 1990?
You’re still more apt to get struck by lightning than die in a mass shooting, so no, I’m not afraid.
Yeah, but it isn't soly about me. Point is random mass shootings shouldn't happen at all. Only in this country this sort of thing happens.
Not even in 3rd world hell holes random mass shootings happens.
Wtf you need help
11 people died from a lightning strike in the US in 2021.
"Hundreds" were struck by lightning, but the Gun Violence Archive defines mass shootings as incidents in which four or more people are shot, even if no one was killed (again excluding the shooters). Using this definition, 513 people died in these incidents in 2020."
"Realistically" its one of the rarest crimes to happen to someone. So why would I have an irrational fear of it happening?
Rare? There's been more mass shooting this year alone then days within the first 5 months of this year.
And? So? Its still very rare. It could triple next month and its still very unlikely to happen to you.
"... particular safe areas such as schools." I dont think anyone thinks gun free spaces are particular safe areas since those are where almost all mass shootings happen.
Dude, in the past 3 years there has been around 5 random mass shootings, and maybe one which is the current one happened at a school and this school had a police resource officer and it still didn't matter.
Gun free zone or not, people are getting gunned down even in Texas in El Paso Walmart parking lot racist killed 23 latinos in 2019.
Schools are not the only gun free zone and one school officer is not the same as a non gun free zone. Try again.
y'all claim if someone has a gun when mass shooter are active they can be put down by those armed and not kill someone or many people.
Yet two literal armed cops confronted the shooter outside before he went in the building and still didn't stop him from killing all those people.
Face it, you have no logical argument as typical of you stupid conservatives who can't think beyond the bridge of y'all noses.
The vast majority of 'mass killings' are gang bangers taking each other out.
True, but there shouldn't be none at all especially random ones of innocent people especially in supposed safe establishments.
It's so damn bizarre and wild.
Well the US has had a faction of this country whose expressed goals is the destruction of American society so it can be replaced with a socialist regime. To do that, they have worked on tearing down the American family, increased the welfare state making people dependent on the government, disparaged any institution that makes a society whole - family, religion, heterosexuality, marriage, security, hard work, chastity, strong males.
Now we have a bunch of isolated and nihilistic youth pumped full of psychoactive drugs.
"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." Lincoln's First Annual Message to Congress, December 3, 1861.
If you live in the US and outside of the most violent inner cities, and outside of their most violent counties, then you should be more scared of lightning.
Only two states have a murder rate below Canada's.
@goaded But Canada's murder rate is 1,95 per 100K.
Just vehicular deaths are 12 per 100K. Canada's was like 4,6.
Now, as I said, you are safe outside of the most dangerous states, of the most dangerous cities and of the most dangerous counties in those.
And of course, that's all homicides, only a fraction is gun homicides (around a half) and only the smallest fraction of those are random lunatic mass shooting. Even when it comes to mass shootings, it's the usual lunatics with a rep shit a mile a high one should be scared of.
Death per mass shootings, gosh, that would be 9/100M for US /100M for Canada, note the changes in scale.
It's 188/100M in Norway, 13 for finland, 34 for france.
All 2022 data, of course, the year isn't over.
Regarding your "more scared of lightning": 11 people died of lightning strikes in 2021, "hundreds" were hit. New Hampshire had 12 murder victims in 2020, and that was the state with the lowest murder rate in the country (and, incidentally, the only state and the only year to drop below 1 murder per 100,000 in the last decade).
Motor vehicle fatalities are higher than gun murders, but vehicles also get people where they want to go (or to work) every day. They have a useful purpose other than killing.
Incidentally, you don't have to be killed with a gun to be scared of them. Nearly half a million people were victims of a gun crime in the US in 2011.
"In 2020, 76.7 percent of homicides were committed by firearm in the United States." So "around a half" is wrong. Half of firearms deaths are suicides, maybe that's what you're thinking of.
www.statista.com/.../
"only the smallest fraction of those are random lunatic mass shooting."
We understand that, everybody understands that. Many people think that making it less easy for a random lunatic to shoot 20 small children in the face is a worthwhile effort. Why don't you? You don't need 30 round magazines for anything but killing lots of people.
Your statistics are bullshit, of course. 32 deaths in your 2 "totally random" mass shootings this year is, as you say, 9 (nearer 10) per 100M, against 0/100M in Canada, 0/100M in Norway, 0/100M in Finland, 0/100M in France. Because, afaics, none of those countries have had a mass shooting this year. Probably not last year, either.
@goaded That part was figure of speech.
You could have said that first and I'd clarified, but you didn't, you talked about Canada.
That's probably because you knew it was an exaggeration.
Guns also protect people, 1,6M uses of gun in defensive situations.
Also, most guns used in mass shootings (which are a small portion of all shootings) and in homicides and gun violence (which are the majority of fatalities) are illegal guns.
94% of all mass shootings happen on gun freezones, that school was a gun free zone.
crimeresearch.org/.../
Now, you can show your support for a gun free world by putting a sign in your lawn saying "gunfree house!" and urge your neighbors to do the same!
"Guns also protect people, 1,6M uses of gun in defensive situations."
Really? Because then all of those 1.6M would have been victims of a crime involving a firearm, and there were only half a million of those, and not all of them used guns to defend themselves, so that's another exageration.
That school was supposed to be protected by armed police, so not gun-free.
Most homes are gun free over here. There are probably a few hunting rifles along the street, but that's because we live in the country.
Nothing to say about your other made-up statistics? The Norway one was particularly egregarious.
@goaded "how many would have been victims of a crime involving a firearm?" a significant portion, but not relevant. Skinny chick was saved by a gun from a knife crime, it's a life saved.
Also, that's what "gun free" means, it means citizens don't get to use guns, two it was literally gun free at the time, the cops weren't armed.
Oh, so you are saying you are only going to protect against guns with guns?
How was he stopped? Was by a boarder agent... With a legal shotgun he had? Against a boy with an illegal handgun?
So what you are actually saying and have always said is that civilians don't have a right to protect themselves. The fun thing is that you also don't want cops to be able to protect civilians.
How long did the cops take this time? Well, way long than what your said was "only 0,5M".
Oh, about norway, I posted the source, read it. The source itself is sourced.
When you quote someone, it's traditional to quotes words they actually said and not nonsense you make up. Also, the one source you gave was for something other than the Norway statistic which was for the only time since WWII that Norway had had a mass shooting. John Lott is someone who lies with misleading statistics. I'm not going to believe a thing he says.
Does Europe have more mass shootings than the USA? ↗
@goaded Still had it though.
Also, in all cases it's a far cry from all gun homicides, and even a longer distance from all homicides.
What this shows is that mass shootings are atypical crimes, with highly fluctuating statistics that come with it's low samples.
Which was my original point. Which is why you do everything to publicize it, even though it increases it's risks, same thing you do with suicide, except suicides are quite high.
And why you do everything you can to drill in on everyone that violence is a justifiable way to deal with words you don't like, and why you do anything you can to alienate young men.
Big question, do you know armand? Are you armand?
"Still had it though." What, the Norway statistic? Not on that page, I just knew it from Lott's article that claimed 25 > 25 and went downhill from there.
"And why you do everything you can to drill in on everyone that violence is a justifiable way to deal with words you don't like, and why you do anything you can to alienate young men."
Do you mean me? When have I ever said "violence is a justifiable way to deal with words you don't like"?
"Big question, do you know armand? Are you armand?"
Who?
@goaded Where's 25>25?
I know you here, and here you have defended such positions, or are you gonna say chappelle's assaulter was unjustified? Let's be more extreme, the person who decked cucked spencer?
Or one more obvious, your friends who beat up Ngo?
What about bills that criminalize misgendering? That's justifying state violence for something less than an insult.
That's compelling speech with violence.
When have I ever said "violence is a justifiable way to deal with words you don't like" or anything like it?
My words, on here. A real quote, not just what you wish I'd written.
@goaded Have you ever heard of inference?
Now, you can prove me wrong and say criminalizing misgendering is wrong, as one example.
Also say that decking cuck spencer was wrong.
That beating Ngo was a heinous crime.
Etc.
Have you ever heard of honesty? Even if I did privately think those things were justified (I don't), that would still be light-years away from what you accused me of: "you do everything you can to drill in on everyone that violence is a justifiable way to deal with words you don't like". I don't. I have never said anything like that.
@goaded I have heard of honesty, have you heard of induction, Mr. "trump hasn't denounced white supremacy?" and have you heard of having universal standards instead of double ones?
Denounce the guy who decked cucked spencer!
Denounce chappelle's attacker!
Denounce criminalizing misgendering!
I already said I didn't support those things. Now it's time for you to apologise for saying without a shred of evidence that I've ever even suggested "violence is a justifiable way to deal with words you don't like".
@goaded You don't support what? Can you be more verbose, mr. "trump never denounced white supremacy!" You gonna need to be as verbose as trump was and as many times as trump has.
Also, what's this:
Teaching racism in US schools: are the parents worried about their children or themselves? ↗
Oh, don't pretend you don't know what CRT is, how's it's applied in education and how it's weaved into the curriculum or what it's premisses are.
"But how's that supporting violence against speech?" it's a critical theory.
How often are you going to "quote" things I never said? It's tiresome and dishonest.
@goaded Is this you here?
The plot to kidnap/kill a governor. Are these very fine people? ↗
“Liberate Michigan” You know, about the fed plot? Wanna know what's also a fed plot?
As I asked "who's armand?"
Oh no, but you never said "very fine people" in 2017, sure...
Also, you haven't denounced CRT, or CT.
And the most beautiful thing of this is that you stuck on this, after I schooled you. Gosh.
You see, I'm implying you said this through your actions the same way you implied trump was a racist through bullshit.
You do realise that you're making less and less sense?
"As I asked "who's armand?""
No, you didn't, you asked if I was armand ("Big question, do you know armand? Are you armand?"), to which I responded "Who?"
"You see, I'm implying you said this through your actions the same way you implied trump was a racist through bullshit. "
I'm not sure I did that, either, if I did, it would have been using quotes of things he actually said and not stuff made up as I went along. That's what you're doing, pretending I said things I didn't.
Are you still looking desperately for something to hang what you accused me of on: "you do everything you can to drill in on everyone that violence is a justifiable way to deal with words you don't like"? (See how that works: I quote things you actually wrote, not something else pretending its what you wrote.)
I can save you some time: I've never said anything like that.
@goaded Can I refresh your memory?
Have you ever asked someone to prove Trump is a racist? ↗
You did that in there, a lot, imply he's racist over bullshit.
"goaded
@FroztyDaHoeMan He told four Americans (one naturalised at 17, after 7 years in the country) to go back to where they came from. Do you think that was based on anything but the colour of their skins? How many Irish Americans had the same treatment from him?"
And froztydahoeman response which you ignored.
"Yea and Omar also wrapped herself in the flag of Iraq when she won a seat in Congress so yea she should get the fuck out of here."
Also, it seems like you know who I'm talking about when I ask about armand.
Let me refresh your memory: you're supposed to be trying to justify your slander that I've ever said "that violence is a justifiable way to deal with words you don't like". Not that I think Trump's a racist (which I do). Also, if you look through that discussion, I never once attributed a statement to Trump that he hadn't made, unlike you've done multiple times to me in this discussion.
How does saying "who?" prove I know who you're talking about? Rational people would understand the opposite. Perhaps you misspelt it and think I'm a murdered black man.
@goaded One, you don't seem to understand quotes have more than one use, but you do as you have interacted quite well with the other uses of quotes than direct quotes.
Stop being disingenuous. I though I wouldn't have to bring this, since it was clear when I invoked inference, but it seems like you love playing dumb.
Again, do you understand the concept of inference?
Are you that desperate after being schooled?
Don't worry, I can deal with people more stubborn than you are.
Remember your post "you think the media makes up stories about trump?"(not a direct quote, since you are being disingenuous)
No, you don't understand. You accused me of something I've never done, saying something I've never said or even implied, and you have absolutely nothing to back it up. Instead you're trying everything to distract from what you did, including making up fake quotes.
Your "idea" of inference is that I'm not right wing, so I must be a violent communist. It's bullshit. You also infer from me not knowing a name, I must be or know that person. That's also bullshit.
Find a genuine quote of something I said that says I think violence is a reasonable response to words I don't like, apologise, or get lost.
@goaded No, that's not my idea of inference, I could name a shit ton of left wing individuals I don't think are commies, but you'd call them all right wing. Tulsi as one example, and she's not even a classical liberal, she's a classical social democrat. Like bernie, except she has principles and balls, bernie lacks both, probably because he appeals almost exclusively to commies with a rep sheet.
I can reference another one from you, the "If you don't slave away to gibs me money, you are stealing from me" (again, not a direct quote, but I'm referencing your eisenhoward quote.)
@goaded Oh, let me add one thing here:
Why would a winning side be violent? ↗
They have been violent, so why would they? And why would they deny themselves the right to audit the elections?
You have a very twisted idea of the world. (And I notice you still didn't apologise for falsely accusing me of saying or even implying "that violence is a justifiable way to deal with words you don't like".)
What "eisenhoward" quote? You mean Eisenhower's one about the military industrial complex? A quote that hasn't been used in this conversation and is entirely irrelevant to it?
"Why would a winning side be violent?"
They weren't. The losing side was. And the elections have been audited and re-counted six ways from Sunday and not a single one was shown to have been fraudulent, while Lindell, Powell, Giuliani, Trump, and the rest have spent the last two years lying about supposed proof only they know. Truth usually comes out, eventually. And the truth about Trump's reaction to the election he lost stinks to high heaven.
Why would a winning side be violent? ↗ was from before the election, and correctly anticipated that the right wing, not the left, would be violent if the Democrats won. In retrospect, it's obvious that Trump was laying the groundwork for his coup attempt for when he lost.
@goaded Correctly? Gosh, you really missed the "fiery but peaceful" "summer of love"?
The left was violent even before trump won.
Don't forget what you said on that "fine people" of the whitmer plot.
Did you mean the feds?
Gosh, I love schooling you, it's good practice, there's tougher people out there.
But at least you are "neo-nazi" levels of debate.
It's easy mode, but it's not "games journalist" mode.
I'd put you on cucked spencer or vaush's level.
I learn stuff like "gosh, I still held some ingrained social democrat beliefs that are utterly retarded and inherently self contradictory." kinda stuff.
Or stuff that I learnt that reinforces my centrist principles to help me with the groyper's types.
@goaded "about the industrial military complex" lol, that's a weird way to make a quote about the industrial military complex.
Also, you don't seem to be updated on things. None of those were fully audited.
Actually, the 2016 also wasn't audited, they offered clinton but she didn't wanted to because she also "fortified that election".
When are you going to apologise for falsely accusing me of saying "that violence is a justifiable way to deal with words you don't like"? You've rather pathetically gone back over two years of my posts, now, and you've still to find anything that remotely backs up your lie, and you don't even seem to understand what you're reading.
Context: Trump and I were both talking about what would happen after the election.
Clinton accepted the results and the word of the states that the elections were fair. Trump still hasn't done that because he's a traitor who tried to to overturn the results of the election. (He was obviously planning to lie about the results if he lost in 2016, too.) Arizona's audit found more votes for Biden, and it wasn't even that close an election.
@goaded Accepted the result? Are you kidding?
She not only said the election was stolen by russia by using a dossier she paid for and now is at an inch from jail.
She also, despite saying the election was stolen, refused to audit the election to prove her claims.
"remotely backs up your lie" they don't remotely back up my claims, they back them up quite strongly.
I don't know if you know this, but your team here is also shooting themselves in the foot trying to "fortify" the election while the people want printed, hash verifiable, ballots.
No, I'm not joking about Clinton. She accepted the vote count within days of the election, as any reasonable person would when the margin was so large. Russia's influence was to misinform people so they would vote for Trump (or at least not for Clinton). Looking at the ballots would be pointless.
When are you going to apologise for falsely accusing me of saying "that violence is a justifiable way to deal with words you don't like"? You've gone through two years of my posts, now, so quote me saying that violence is acceptable as a response to "words" of any kind.
@goaded You must be joking, we had years of the "trump colluded with russia to steal the election!"
Oh, but she didn't wanted to fight it through the legal methods of auditing the election, no, she wanted to be subversive with a sham impeachment. It's like stacy abrams, who instead of asking for an audit, who declared it was stolen because it was stolen. And then had her employees open a suit under the same lines.
And now she's going to jail for that, another trump election promise he's fulfilling, except we misrepresented how he'd do it. We didn't thought his method was being a target and letting her incriminate herself.
It would be polite to read my posts before babbling on about things I already covered. There was no doubt about who won in 2016 or 2020 when it came to ballots cast, which is what determines the winner. Only Trump refuses to accept it.
I'm still looking forward to you quoting me even implying "that violence is a justifiable way to deal with words you don't like", like you falsely accused me of saying. You've gone through over two years of my posts, now, so quote me saying that violence is acceptable as a response to "words" of any kind. All you've found are words you don't like.
Trump probably did collude with Russia to steal the election, but enough people were willing to cover it up and be convicted for it (in the certain expectation of a pardon, of course) that it couldn't be proven.
@goaded "only trump refused to accept it" no, his whole base, and a bit of the democrat base mistrusted the election results. And he did what his base wanted and pursued the legal avenues.
Clinton on the other hand questioned the results and instead of pursuing legal avenues, she used fake news bought by her to pursue backdoor methods to oust trump, claiming for years that she won and that trump got illegitimate votes by colluding with russia.
You spread the russiahoax as well, knowing full well from the start it was all bogus.
It's no wonder you got called a liar because you spread hit pieces here.
Trump was the only candidate for president that ever refused to accept it. Better? You'll note that not one Republican senator that won their election in 2020 thinks their election was invalid. Funny, that.
The legal avenues ran out some time in December 2020, then they started in on the illegal ones, like fraudulent electors, lying about the integrity of the election in congress, and of course violently attacking the Capitol.
Talking of liars, when are you going to apologise for falsely claiming that I ever said "that violence is a justifiable way to deal with words you don't like", let alone that I "do everything [I] can to drill [it] in on everyone"?
@goaded Bullshit, clinton did it in 2016 and still calls the election stolen to this day, in states, stacy abrams is another good example.
Saying they didn't is gaslightning, all they did was wave a claim to audits because both knew they "fortified" as much as possible.
When are you going to apologise for falsely claiming that I ever said "that violence is a justifiable way to deal with words you don't like"? Go on, just say "sorry", it will just be another one of your lies.
Anyway. Here's Clinton's concession speech from Nov 9th (she comes in about 6 minutes in). Where's Trump's? When did he congratulate Biden?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khK9fIgoNjQ
"Last night I congratulated Donald Trump and offered to work with him on behalf of our country. I hope that he will be a successful president for all Americans," she said this morning.
"This is not the outcome that we wanted... and I'm sorry that we did not win this election.
"This is painful and it will be for a long time."
Abrams' election was literally being overseen by her opponent who purged hundreds of thousands of voters from the rolls and blocked tens of thousands of new registrations shortly before the election.
@goaded When it's not evident it's true.
Oh, she did a pretty concession speech? How lovely.
So did trump.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYKkQ3BOo_E
Neither really conceded, except trump pursued legal avenues instead of using a concocted dossier he paid for, like clinton did.
Are you going to apologise for falsely claiming that I ever said "that violence is a justifiable way to deal with words you don't like"? Go on, just say "sorry", it will just be another one of your lies. Or it might even make you feel better; the truth can set you free!
So, two months after decisively losing the election and after a violent attack on the Capitol failed to steal the election on his behalf, Trump reads a statement and 17 seconds in he's already lying "immediately deployed the national guard and federal law enforcement to secure the building" my ass, it took hours. "My only goal was to ensure the integrity of the vote"? Bullshit. The only reason people are doubting the election is because he keeps lying about it. There's no evidence of significant fraud, all the election officials and even Bill Barr said so.
He never says the words "lost", "Biden", or any variation of the word "concede".
And that's what you're claiming is the same as Clinton's speech a couple of days after the election?
@goaded Anything burned, like a church? Do you know who rey epps is?
Is he your pall? How are you feeling about the durham investigation? What about the laptop from hell? Aware of the investigations into META's backdoor financing into the election?
Have you heard of the tale of mussolini?
You're not going to get out of this by shouting "squirrel"!
Apologise for falsely claiming that I ever said "that violence is a justifiable way to deal with words you don't like". It might even make you feel better; the truth can set you free!
You think that Trump reading a statement two months after decisively losing the election and after a violent attack on the Capitol failed to steal the election on his behalf, is anything like a concession speech days after the election? That's ignoring the obvious lies (he "immediately deployed the national guard and federal law enforcement to secure the building" my ass, it took hours). The only reason people are doubting the election is because he keeps lying about it. There's no evidence of significant fraud, all the election officials and even Bill Barr said so. Fortunately, Georgia re-elected the Secretary of State that had the integrity to stand up to him.
He never says the words "lost", "Biden", let alone "President-elect Biden", or any variation of the word "concede".
@goaded That's not what I just did, and certainly had a very strong effect on you.
I said before, there's enough to infer with a lot of certainty that you did spread the "fine people" hoax.
Gosh, you just spread a lot of the russiahoax.
Besides that, do you remember that church that you guys burned that you guys cried about saying the police dispersed the protests because trump ordered them? And it was also false?
Remember when trump offered the national guard to pelosi?
Remember the durham investigation? Have you watched 2K mules? Are you happy with elon musk purchase?
You see, that's not a red herring you love using too much, it's just holding you to your own standards after I schooled you over and over again.
I'm looking for an apology from you for falsely claiming that I ever said "that violence is a justifiable way to deal with words you don't like".
Hoaxes or not (they're not), those things don't even come close.
Durham: 2 indictments, no convictions.
Mueller: Charges against 34 individuals and 3 companies, 9 convictions.
@goaded Have you see the evidence? And hoaxes with less to infer they are hoaxes.
Here, I have a lot to infer you really love those hoaxes that are easily disprovable.
But hey, I'm talking to someone who likes to pretend he doesn't understand economies of scale.
There's some sub 85s with your agenda here, you aren't one of them.
Of those who know exactly what they are doing, I think I can count you and odd.
Gosh, you guys have such an identical pattern that it frequently feels like you are the same dude.
(I don't think you are, by the way. Just pointing the similarities.)
I'm still, probably futilely, waiting for an apology from you for falsely claiming that I ever said "that violence is a justifiable way to deal with words you don't like". Or even just an admission that I haven't.
Nobody's disproved that Trump colluded with Russia to help his election (I'm sure he did, otherwise there wouldn't have been any need to obstruct justice to get away with it), it's a matter of opinion about the "very fine people", but in my opinion "very fine people" don't march alongside the kind of people who had participated in the Tiki Torch march terrorising people the previous night.
The parts about economies of scale (unless you're talking about you finding it easier to lie the more often you do it?) and "sub 85s" (what?) make no sense to me. What are you talking about?
@goaded Actually yes, it was disproven. And has been for a while.
The proof that the dossier was a political hitjob paid by hilary was more than enough proof.
You might as well say "well, nobody proved that trump isn't literally the godemperor of mankind..."
So, still no apology from you for falsely claiming that I ever said "that violence is a justifiable way to deal with words you don't like". Or even just an admission that I haven't.
It has not been disproven that Trump colluded with Russia, and it must be clear even to you that he let Putin get away with interfering in 2016 on his behalf, Durham just lost the only court case his $40m "investigation" has brought. That leaves just one even less convincing one to go. Totally worth $40 million of taxpayer money.
Mueller won every case that was under US jurisdiction.
Why don't you try to explain your "economies of scale" and "sub 85s" nonsense?
No not really, I have to go to work and stuff. Living in fear doesn't pay my bills
The real issue is our children getting affected by crime, pulled into gangs, getting the right education. Or hell just the right motivation.
Not in my state. If I was in Chicago, NY or LA I would be because their gun laws don’t allow you to carry
Very rare and I carry. So I can shoot back. 90% of crimes are in Democrate cities.
The most violent and crime states are Republican states according to data. Out of the top 10 only 2 are Democrat states the rest Republican.
Which data? Because FBI statistics show 90% of violent crime is inner big cities. All Democrate held. Some of those cities, like Austin, happen to be in Republican states. But still a heavily Denocrate run city.
You remove the top 10 crime rider cities in the USA from overall statistics and the USA becomes one of the safest countries in the world.
Who has more political power, a local mayor or governor who is in charge of his whole state affairs?
Why should I live my life in fear because of rare and isolated events?
Isolated events? You haven't been paying attention to how many random mass shootings have been happening within the last 5 years.
It's been so many within that time that most people can't even remember how many has been, that's how common it is now.
You’re watching too much tv. Quit driving yourself insane
mass shootings kill 3x less people a year in america than toasters
No. I have a gun. I’m not afraid of others. People usually kill people who aren’t a threat.
No I am not but I sit at back of church to attach if one comes in
I don't let other people control my life
I rarely go to target rich environments.
If I die I die.
Yes I have always been
No not really
Nope