• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

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

minarchist

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2013
Messages
473
Location
Fredericksburg, VA
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? :banghead:
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
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:

minarchist

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2013
Messages
473
Location
Fredericksburg, VA
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.
 

ADobbs1989

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
465
Location
Alabama
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.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
*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.
 

minarchist

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2013
Messages
473
Location
Fredericksburg, VA
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?
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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.
 

Red Dawg

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2010
Messages
399
Location
Eastern VA, with too many people
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...
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
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.
 

OldCurlyWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2010
Messages
907
Location
Oklahoma
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? :banghead:

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.
 

ak56

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
746
Location
Carnation, Washington, USA
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? :banghead:

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.
 
Top