• Hey, guys! FreeOnes Tube is up and running - see for yourself!
  • FreeOnes Now Listing Male and Trans Performers! More info here!

Most say it's the guns. I say, it's today's society

Supafly

Retired Mod
Bronze Member
LMAO, as if liberals aren't the kings of that shit. "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor", and all that...:rolleyes:



Mind your own fucked up country.

I expected nothing else from you.

Guess you need some of your loved ones shot to understand things need to change.
 

xfire

New Twitter/X @cxffreeman
LMAO, as if liberals aren't the kings of that shit. "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor", and all that...:rolleyes: Mind your own fucked up country.

Considering Obamacare was sabotaged by Republicans from the time it was being drafted, calling what Obama said a "lie" is a stretch. He was wrong, sure, but you can thank the dipshits in both republican caucuses in Congress for that. And that's about the best you've got, which is Bengahzi Turd Sandwich territory. That whole "mind your own fucked up country" line is old, real old, mind your own fucked up sandbox.
 
I expected nothing else from you.

Guess you need some of your loved ones shot to understand things need to change.

Gun crime has gone down in the last 25 years in America despite considerably MORE guns in society now.

The media is feeding the people this hysteria about mass shooting and they are all falling for it. The LV shooting was an outlier in the situation. Murder rate (with/by gun) was cut in half from 1993 to 2013.
 

Supafly

Retired Mod
Bronze Member
Gun crime has gone down in the last 25 years in America despite considerably MORE guns in society now.

The media is feeding the people this hysteria about mass shooting and they are all falling for it. The LV shooting was an outlier in the situation. Murder rate (with/by gun) was cut in half from 1993 to 2013.

There are still mass murders going on, and so you think, hey, killings are slowly becoming less, that is the way to go?

And we need to look at other situations like accidents (Children vs. guns = dead parents or playfriends), suicides (A firearm at hand is a instant kill all for people in a dark hour), etc.
 

meesterperfect

Hiliary 2020
It is this simpke:

It is absolutely fine for a person to own a pistol, a revolver, a shotgun or a rifle.

That person has to be:

- at least 18
- have no criminal past
- be mentally and psychologically stable
- not be on a terrorist watchlist, on a dangerous level

If you want to own weapons that are designed for military use, or begin to "upgrade" your formerly legal weapons, you lose the right to own and have any guns.

Anything else is making things dangerous, not safer.

You already have to be 18.
you already must have no criminal past.

The mentally stable part?
Thats where it gets complicated.
You are assumed mentally stable or unstable by your criminal record.
You do get asked and or quized if you have "mental" problems but anyone can lie.
And many "crazy" people are good at hiding it.
So they really only have your criminal record to go by.

Now they could make all people who want a firearm go to a psychiatrist but who's going to pay for it?
And not only that a psychiatrist can say anything. Its not exactly an exact science.
And if they are working for the GOV well thats no good.

As far as the watch lists go, no way.
Anybody can be on a list. We could all be on a list just for visiting this page.

So criminal past is really the only thing they have to go on.
 
There are still mass murders going on, and so you think, hey, killings are slowly becoming less, that is the way to go?

And we need to look at other situations like accidents (Children vs. guns = dead parents or playfriends), suicides (A firearm at hand is a instant kill all for people in a dark hour), etc.

There are considerably more guns in America today than there were in 1993, yet gun murders/crime has been cut in HALF, or more.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ited-states-heres-why/?utm_term=.4e70f826b8bd


What, again, is the problem? Oh, it's a PEOPLE PROBLEM! Media needs to STOP SHOWING THESE MASS SHOOTING MANIACS, for starters. Don't give them THE FAME THEY WANT.


The only difference between when I was a kid in the 90s when these mass shootings never happened and now - aside from there is WAY MORE GUNS FLOATING AROUND NOW - is that the media has glorified these shooters, medications of certain varieties have gone WAY up, and violent video games and movies are pushed into the minds of the young and so on...


It's not about guns...it's about people.
 

xfire

New Twitter/X @cxffreeman
The mentally stable part? Thats where it gets complicated.

Complicating things even more, criminals aren't immediately considered mentally unstable. We don't live in the world of Minority Report, at least not yet, and even criminals have the presumption of innocence (at least mostly) in crimes unrelated to what they've already been convicted of. Prior to the mass murder there was no reason to suspect Stephen Paddock of anything criminal, in absence of compelling evidence that a crime will be committed you can't detain, let alone convict a person of something they haven't done. I just don't see profiling of people like Paddock as either viable or something that would go over with certain demographics.
 
you already must have no criminal past.
Still, you can buy guns in a gun show without any background check

The mentally stable part?
Thats where it gets complicated.
You are assumed mentally stable or unstable by your criminal record.
You do get asked and or quized if you have "mental" problems but anyone can lie.
And many "crazy" people are good at hiding it.
So they really only have your criminal record to go by.

Now they could make all people who want a firearm go to a psychiatrist but who's going to pay for it?
And not only that a psychiatrist can say anything. Its not exactly an exact science.
And if they are working for the GOV well thats no good.


Now they could make all people who want a firearm go to a psychiatrist but who's going to pay for it?
And not only that a psychiatrist can say anything. Its not exactly an exact science.
And if they are working for the GOV well thats no good.[/QUOTE] Get a "psychologicl report" from any private psychiatric you want. And pay for it by yourself. If you really wanna buy a gun, you can afford a psychiatrist session. And, to avoid any corruption (like the guy paying his psychiatrist to get a "positive" report, just find a way to pay for the consequences of his mistake if a person he gave a positive report to happens to be found guilty of a gun crime or to kill himself after he commited a crime.

As far as the watch lists go, no way.
Anybody can be on a list. We could all be on a list just for visiting this page.
No, you're not added to the terrorist watch-list for visiting a gun-control topic on a porn board.
Anyway, people on the terrorist watch list are people who've been flagged as potentially dangerous for national security by US intelligence. These people shouldn't be allowed to buy a gun. At least not an automatic or semi-automatic, no high capacity magazines and no armor-piercing bullets.
When someone on the terrorist watch-list by some automatic rifles, a few high capacity magazines and armor-piercing bullets, you know they aren't getting ready for hunting...

Bloodshot Scott said:
It's not about guns...it's about people.
Ok, the why would we let dangerous people buy guns, legally ?
This is what gun-control ia all about : making the best we can to prevent dangerous people from buying firearms but allowing law-abiding citizens to buy some.
 
I know, some would say that if they can't gun control doesn't work because if the can' buy guns legally, criminals will buy them illegaly or steal them. But the fact that criminals don't follow the law doesn't mean we shouldn't have laws.
Rape is illegal, still rapists rape women. So obviously making rape illegal is not effective, it doesn't stops rapists from raping.
Then, should we make rape legal ?
 

Will E Worm

Conspiracy...
Funky how they notes obesity but when M. Obama tried to have healthier food for US kids, conservatives were furious...

Funky... :rolleyes:

People can eat what they want.

I know, some would say that if they can't gun control doesn't work because if the can' buy guns legally, criminals will buy them illegaly or steal them. But the fact that criminals don't follow the law doesn't mean we shouldn't have laws.
Rape is illegal, still rapists rape women. So obviously making rape illegal is not effective, it doesn't stops rapists from raping.
Then, should we make rape legal ?

Guns and rape is not a compatible argument.

They can't stop those in the military to stop raping and murdering civilians in other countries.

Politicians can't stop telling lies.


Rape has a statute of limitations. Why not bank robbery?

The statute of limitations needs to be lifted and all old cases reopened.
 
The "Media" is a big part of the reason for the increase in these shootings:

August 4, 2016
"Media Contagion" Is Factor in Mass Shootings, Study Says
Psychologist calls on media to withhold shooters’ names
DENVER — People who commit mass shootings in America tend to share three traits: rampant depression, social isolation and pathological narcissism, according to a paper presented at the American Psychological Association’s annual convention that calls on the media to deny such shooters the fame they seek.
“Mass shootings are on the rise and so is media coverage of them,” said Jennifer B. Johnston, PhD, of Western New Mexico University. “At this point, can we determine which came first? Is the relationship merely unidirectional: More shootings lead to more coverage? Or is it possible that more coverage leads to more shootings?”
Johnston and her coauthor, Andrew Joy, BS, also of Western New Mexico University, reviewed data on mass shootings amassed by media outlets, the FBI and advocacy organizations, as well as scholarly articles, to conclude that “media contagion” is largely responsible for the increase in these often deadly outbursts. They defined mass shootings as either attempts to kill multiple people who are not relatives or those resulting in injuries or fatalities in public places.
The prevalence of these crimes has risen in relation to the mass media coverage of them and the proliferation of social media sites that tend to glorify the shooters and downplay the victims, Johnston said.
“We suggest that the media cry to cling to ‘the public’s right to know’ covers up a greedier agenda to keep eyeballs glued to screens, since they know that frightening homicides are their No. 1 ratings and advertising boosters,” she said.
The demographic profile of mass shooters is fairly consistent, she said. Most are white, ostensibly heterosexual males, largely between the ages of 20 and 50. They tend to see themselves as “victims of injustice,” and share a belief that they have been cheated out of their rightful dominant place as white, middle-class males.
“Unfortunately, we find that a cross-cutting trait among many profiles of mass shooters is desire for fame,” she said. This quest for fame among mass shooters skyrocketed since the mid-1990s “in correspondence to the emergence of widespread 24-hour news coverage on cable news programs, and the rise of the internet during the same period.”
She cited several media contagion models, most notably one proposed by Towers et al. (2015), which found the rate of mass shootings has escalated to an average of one every 12.5 days, and one school shooting on average every 31.6 days, compared to a pre-2000 level of about three events per year. “A possibility is that news of shooting is spread through social media in addition to mass media,” she said.
“If the mass media and social media enthusiasts make a pact to no longer share, reproduce or retweet the names, faces, detailed histories or long-winded statements of killers, we could see a dramatic reduction in mass shootings in one to two years,” she said. “Even conservatively, if the calculations of contagion modelers are correct, we should see at least a one-third reduction in shootings if the contagion is removed.”
She said this approach could be adopted in much the same way as the media stopped reporting celebrity suicides in the mid-1990s after it was corroborated that suicide was contagious. Johnston noted that there was “a clear decline” in suicide by 1997, a couple of years after the Centers for Disease Control convened a working group of suicidologists, researchers and the media, and then made recommendations to the media.
“The media has come together before to work for good, to incite social change,” she said. “They have done, and they can do it. It is time. It is enough.”
http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2016/08/media-contagion.aspx


I guess they make a ton of their blood money off these tragedies, though...:mad:
 
Even if the mass media and social media enthusiasts make a pact to no longer share, reproduce or retweet the names, faces, detailed histories or long-winded statements of killers, all this wood still be all over social medias. Medias could come together but people never will. Such a pact won't stop people from tweeting or posting on facebook, Instagram, etc. everything they know or everything they want other people to believe.
If there's a shooting and the medias have agreed not to reveal the photo of the shooter, don't you think people like InfoWars would jump on the occasion ?
 
Even if the mass media and social media enthusiasts make a pact to no longer share, reproduce or retweet the names, faces, detailed histories or long-winded statements of killers, all this wood still be all over social medias. Medias could come together but people never will. Such a pact won't stop people from tweeting or posting on facebook, Instagram, etc. everything they know or everything they want other people to believe.
If there's a shooting and the medias have agreed not to reveal the photo of the shooter, don't you think people like InfoWars would jump on the occasion ?

The article plainly states:

“If the mass media and social media enthusiasts make a pact to no longer share, reproduce or retweet the names, faces, detailed histories or long-winded statements of killers, we could see a dramatic reduction in mass shootings in one to two years,”


Maybe those ratbastard, money hungry swamp dwellers at CNN, MSNBC and Fox should show us where they stand on this. The time is now, like article states.
 
The article plainly states:

“If the mass media and social media enthusiasts make a pact to no longer share, reproduce or retweet the names, faces, detailed histories or long-winded statements of killers, we could see a dramatic reduction in mass shootings in one to two years,”


Maybe those ratbastard, money hungry swamp dwellers at CNN, MSNBC and Fox should show us where they stand on this. The time is now, like article states.
Thankss but I can read.
I"'ve stated that even if CNN, MSNBC and Fox would reach such an agreement, other "unofficial" medias such as InfoWars would publish " the names, faces, detailed histories or long-winded statements of killers". Then it would be all over Twitter and Facebook
So, in the end, such an agreement would just prop people like InfoWars (who could them claim that these medias have made a deal together against the american people).
 
Thankss but I can read.
I"'ve stated that even if CNN, MSNBC and Fox would reach such an agreement, other "unofficial" medias such as InfoWars would publish " the names, faces, detailed histories or long-winded statements of killers". Then it would be all over Twitter and Facebook
So, in the end, such an agreement would just prop people like InfoWars (who could them claim that these medias have made a deal together against the american people).

Not according to the research provided by the researchers.


They say IT WILL GO DOWN significantly.



I hear what you're saying - that there are many more tentacles than just TV for '15 min of fame' nutjobs to glorify their twisted plots - but this article I'm sure took that in to account since it was like a year ago when published.


There will always be Facebook (I think) going forward but I think if the head honchos in media (TV in particular) take the lead, and if that at least stops it 20-30 percent, why wouldn't/shouldn't they?
 
Top