Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Why do progressives complain about "gun violence" and ignore overall violence?

  1. #1
    Regular Member minarchist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Posts
    495

    Thumbs down Why do progressives complain about "gun violence" and ignore overall violence?

    Do these demented clowns seriously not care about the suffering of people who are victims of non-gun violence? Is it of no particular concern to them if a woman is merrely beaten and raped without a gun being involved?

  2. #2
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    This is a Social Lounge thread, IMO. Venting a little, this evening?

    As a Progressive Liberal, I will state that, yes, we do care.

    I appreciate the inquiry. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask.
    Last edited by Beretta92FSLady; 04-04-2013 at 12:30 AM.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  3. #3
    Regular Member minarchist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Posts
    495
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    This is a Social Lounge thread, IMO.
    It relates to OC.

    Venting a little, this evening?
    I am exploring the mentality of progressives.

    As a Progressive Liberal, I will state that, yes, we do care.

    I appreciate the inquiry. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask.
    Explain why progressives so often focus on "gun violence" to the exclusion of overall violence.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    484
    If they cared about overall violence they would look at areas with strict gun control and see the overall violent crime is WAYYY up after guns are banned.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by minarchist View Post
    *snippers*



    Explain why progressives so often focus on "gun violence" to the exclusion of overall violence.
    You must not hang out with many Progressives. I've always got the sense, considering how many Liberals, and Progressives I know--some of them driving me batsht crazy--that Progressives focus a lot of their energy on Rape, and the Penal System, you don't hear about it as much because their usually with boots on the ground protesting, or tagging a building about it.

    The media focuses on gun violence at the expense of overall violence. I realize next you are likely to assert that the media is predominantly Progressive...I'm going to state that it isn't.

    Progressives focus their attention on a lot of things, as do Conservatives, and any other group.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  6. #6
    Regular Member minarchist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Posts
    495
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    You must not hang out with many Progressives. I've always got the sense, considering how many Liberals, and Progressives I know--some of them driving me batsht crazy--that Progressives focus a lot of their energy on Rape, and the Penal System, you don't hear about it as much because their usually with boots on the ground protesting, or tagging a building about it.

    The media focuses on gun violence at the expense of overall violence. I realize next you are likely to assert that the media is predominantly Progressive...I'm going to state that it isn't.

    Progressives focus their attention on a lot of things, as do Conservatives, and any other group.
    What makes "gun violence" worthy of attention to the exclusion of overall violence?

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by ADobbs1989 View Post
    If they cared about overall violence they would look at areas with strict gun control and see the overall violent crime is WAYYY up after guns are banned.
    If they really cared about gun violence, they would not oppose carry, creating gun-free, victim-filled zones. The kids at Sandy Hook are dead because no one there could defend them from a gunman.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Red Dawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Eastern VA, with too many people
    Posts
    404
    No eye, the kids are dead because some jackwagon decided he wanted to kill them....If it was another OK city bomb, would they be less dead, or less tragedy? "Bad people" cause these tragedies, not guns...
    The Second Amendment is in place
    in case the politicians ignore the others

    A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone

  9. #9
    Regular Member Red Dawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Eastern VA, with too many people
    Posts
    404
    Quote Originally Posted by Red Dawg View Post
    No eye, the kids are dead because some jackwagon decided he wanted to kill them....If it was another OK city bomb, would they be less dead, or less tragedy? "Bad people" cause these tragedies, not guns...
    Sorry, eye. Early morning brain damage...I get what you said....I misunderstood for a minute...
    The Second Amendment is in place
    in case the politicians ignore the others

    A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Red Dawg View Post
    No eye, the kids are dead because some jackwagon decided he wanted to kill them...
    That was a necessary element for the crime to be committed. However, a defended school would have either stopped the crime in the first place, because the criminal would, knowing that someone would be shooting back, have chosen a softer target, or stopped the crime in progress, before anywhere near as many children died, because someone defended them.

    We cannot control the crazies and the thugs, much as the anti-gunners think we can. We can only determine our response. It is our response, not the actions of nuts and criminals, that will impact the outcome. The action we collectively chose (or collectively allowed) was to protect the children by not giving anyone permission to have the means necessary to defend the children--and that is why they are dead.

    When making decisions to influence future events, it is a waste of time to focus on that which we cannot control. We should focus on how we choose to react to uncontrollable events to increase the probability of the most favorable possible outcome. Even focussing on, "He's the bad guy. Hold him solely responsible," will not stop the attacks. I am not saying we shouldn't (even if the shooter's intent is not to die on the scene anyway) hold them responsible for their actions. We should, and I applaud Colorado for not saving the time, effort, and money, for continuing the push to put a needle in the Aurora shooter's arm. I am just saying that the one useful thing that we could have done to save all (or, at least, the vast majority) of those children's lives, allowing the adults to defend those children with guns, was prohibited in the vain and moronic idea that such a prohibition would protect the children from a crazy shooter.

    The blood of those children is on the hands of those who could have rationally acted in a way to help those children survive. Yes, it is also on the hands of the irrational nutjob who shot them, but doing anything about him is beyond our control. Even potential needles in the arms won't stop these guys. Guns at the scene will.

    So, primarily hold responsible those who could have prevented this crime and deliberately chose not to do so: The People who allowed their representatives to collect their most precious children in one defenseless place where a lunatic, whom we had no hope of control, could kill them unfettered by even the desire to defend them, let alone the means.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Red Dawg View Post
    Sorry, eye. Early morning brain damage...I get what you said....I misunderstood for a minute...
    Oh, I guess the huge essay I just posted was unnecessary. Sorry to make you waste ten minutes wading through it. Oops.

    I enjoyed getting that off my chest though.

  12. #12
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,268
    Quote Originally Posted by Red Dawg View Post
    No eye, the kids are dead because some jackwagon decided he wanted to kill them....If it was another OK city bomb, would they be less dead, or less tragedy? "Bad people" cause these tragedies, not guns...
    You're right, except for the bomb thing. Thinking about that for a minute or two would reveal that bombs and guns are not the same, obviously, and should not be associated in the same discussion. This is akin to associating evil black rifles and fission bombs as do the anti-gun crowd.

    eye95 (he likely does not care one way or the other being a adult and all, I, on the other hand, are somewhat more adolescent on such things) and I are "battling" over who first blamed those public officials who "make/made" the "gun-free, victim-filled zones" that eye95 refers to. It can be determined here on OCDO who can legitimately lay claim to being the first. I am not smart enough to use the OCDO search function to find "post zero" that would answer this question.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  13. #13
    Regular Member OldCurlyWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    912
    Quote Originally Posted by minarchist View Post
    Do these demented clowns seriously not care about the suffering of people who are victims of non-gun violence? Is it of no particular concern to them if a woman is merrely beaten and raped without a gun being involved?
    Because, in spite of what Beretta Lady say, they are neither progressive nor liberal. They are quite regressive and repressive. Case in point: It doesn't matter that the majority believe that the first amendment means what it says, if you are not of the "liberal" persuasion your opinion needs to be silenced, with deadly force if necessary.
    I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do those things to other people and I require the same of them.

    Politicians should serve two terms, one in office and one in prison.(borrowed from RioKid)

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran ak56's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Carnation, Washington, USA
    Posts
    748
    Quote Originally Posted by minarchist View Post
    Do these demented clowns seriously not care about the suffering of people who are victims of non-gun violence? Is it of no particular concern to them if a woman is merrely beaten and raped without a gun being involved?
    They don't even care about the suffering of people who are victims of gun violence. All they are interested in is the inflated statistics which help support their agenda of banning and confiscating all guns from private ownership.
    No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law. Union Pacific Rail Co. vs Botsford as quoted in Terry v Ohio.


    Talk to your cats about catnip - before it's too late.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •