Guns ARE an issue.
0 2015-06-20 by TortugaTerritory
So, in light of the recent shooting, and in the many large shootings in the past years, you guys say that guns aren't the real issue, and the issue is that of mental health or antidepressants or whatever.
And you're right. Guns aren't the cause of these shootings, it is the fault of the management of the people who do it. The media creates a romantic image of these mass shooters, and some messed up people find the concept alluring. Other people are just messed up mentally and would do it regardless of the media.
But they couldn't have done it without guns. Just because guns aren't the REAL issue doesn't mean they aren't an issue. The guns aren't causing them to do mass shootings, but the guns are allowing them to do it.
Thoughts?
75 comments
15 ChangeThroughTruth 2015-06-20
The problem is that there is an agenda to disarm the population in order to better control them. The government is conducting false flag operations in order to get the public to come on side with stricter gun control measures.
Problem - reaction - solution. It is the Hegelian dialectic. First they figure out what they want, then they create a problem in order to manipulate the opinions of the public, and then they present their ready made solution to that problem.
9/11 - fear and horror, demand for security - DHS, patriot act, excuse to go after Iraq.
Always examine events with this in mind. They do it over and over and over again.
-4 TortugaTerritory 2015-06-20
So what false flag operation are they doing now?
7 ChangeThroughTruth 2015-06-20
The Charleston shooting is incredibly suspicious. You can find lots of other threads in this subreddit discussing it. Of course a lot of it is just speculation, but it just happened. Some of the family member interviews look very much like paid actors following a script and not what you would expect from grieving family members. It is incredibly convenient that this incident helps them advance their agenda of stoking racial tensions and disarming the population.
People's ability to think rationally about an incident is inversely proportional to the horrificness of the incident. Sandy Hook for example. Anyone questioning the official narrative about the incident, especially right after it happened is met with "how dare you, think of the poor families". But this is intentional. You don't even have to answer questions on specifics if you can gloss the whole thing over with horror.
3 metabolix 2015-06-20
Even though I'm not American, I'm curious to check it out. There is so much conspiracy news, its hard to keep up! What's a good source?
-7 Teethpasta 2015-06-20
Yes the government is afraid of some redneck with a shotgun. They are cowering in their fighter jets and battleships.
7 tripsick 2015-06-20
lol you see how afghanistan and iraq turned out..
-6 Teethpasta 2015-06-20
Yeah? The US having complete rule over both of the countries?
0 gocks 2015-06-20
Not even close, are you stark raving mad? Do you live under a rock?
-1 Teethpasta 2015-06-20
Oh sorry until the US decided to pull out and give up control. I figured that was obvious.
0 gocks 2015-06-20
Really? Do you even know how US Army was deployed?
They were closed in their bases with no freedom of movement.
That is not having control over a country, that is "let's wait this out and get a hell out of here."
0 Teethpasta 2015-06-20
Uh you do realize that is how you run an army right? You don't give them free roam
0 gocks 2015-06-20
You really are stupid, aren´t you?
0 Teethpasta 2015-06-20
Lol the US leveled the Taliban and took over the government in Afghanistan and in Iraq the US hung their dictator installed their own sponsored Democratic government. If that isn't taking control of a country I don't know what is.
0 gocks 2015-06-20
Really, leveled? The same Taliban that are in power now? Just like Al-Qaeda and ISIS were leveled?
lol bro U stoopid
0 Teethpasta 2015-06-20
I don't think you understand what pulling out means. It's incredibly ironic how you attempt to insult when you are flat out wrong and are drawing incorrect conclusions.
0 gocks 2015-06-20
Sure buddy, sure.
0 Teethpasta 2015-06-20
I can't believe you are serious. You don't believe the strongest military in the world could subdue a country or did despite the fact it actually happened.
0 gocks 2015-06-20
Keep drinking your coolaid.
You couldn´t keep a peasant country like Vietnam or Korea. You couldn´t keep Iraq or Afghanistan.
Strongest army in the world... lol
1 Teethpasta 2015-06-20
Dude... What the hell are you talking about? The US pulled out of Korea and settled for a split country because they didn't want a war with China. Vietnam was simply to costly and there wasn't enough support for the war. The US is by far the strongest army in the world. There is no debating that.
0 gocks 2015-06-20
Sure kiddo sure lol
0 Teethpasta 2015-06-20
Please tell me your alternate version of history.
0 gocks 2015-06-20
You´re funny. How´s Iraq? Afghanistan? Good work USA, good work.
1 Teethpasta 2015-06-20
No one said they did good work. Funny all of that happened after the US pulled out. And just like I thought no alternate ideas.
0 gocks 2015-06-20
What was that, Taliban killed someone just yesterday. Yea, good work eradicating Talibans... Nice coolaid you got there, who made it, CNN?! lol
1 Teethpasta 2015-06-20
Is that suppose to be a joke? Even if they killed every last one anyone could rise up say they are the "Taliban" which is a ridiculous and impossible standard in the first place.
1 gocks 2015-06-20
Yes, they were eradicated, just like you said. What a joke.
1 Teethpasta 2015-06-20
Lol good one. You don't understand the English language. Clever joke man.
1 gocks 2015-06-20
Sure kiddo.
1 Teethpasta 2015-06-20
Please tell me about how Saddam Hussein fought off the US and never actually was hung and how the Taliban was not replaced in Afghanistan with an elected leader.
1 gocks 2015-06-20
True, USA has no problem killing people.
Winning a war? That's another story.
1 Teethpasta 2015-06-20
I wonder what your definition of winning a war is.
1 gocks 2015-06-20
WWI? WWII?
You'll get the idea.
1 Teethpasta 2015-06-20
Oh so removing the leader of a country and replacing it with your own sponsored government? That's exactly what they did in Iraq and Afghanistan
1 gocks 2015-06-20
Not even close. They tried doing that and failed. The nazi's were never crushed. Got it?
1 Teethpasta 2015-06-20
No it definitely happened. Plenty of news articles about elections. The Nazis were never crushed? Oh so the Russians never took the capital and raped the woman there? Pretty sure that happened.
1 gocks 2015-06-20
Dude, you can´t even understand what you are reading.
1 Teethpasta 2015-06-20
Please then point it out instead of your baseless claims you are making
1 gocks 2015-06-20
I did but your reading comprehension keeps failing you.
1 Teethpasta 2015-06-20
You didn't. You have only said things that are obviously wrong.
1 gocks 2015-06-20
Sure buddy sure.
1 Teethpasta 2015-06-20
Sad you can't provide an alternate. All talk.
1 gocks 2015-06-20
Sure buddy boy sure
5 MyFavoriteLadies 2015-06-20
No, but best believe they'd be scared of a million 'rednecks with shotguns'
Which is still 1/300th of the US population. If one in every 300 people fought against them we could drown them in bodies.
-3 Teethpasta 2015-06-20
You're very confident in the ability of shotguns to beat battleships and fighter jets eh?
4 MyFavoriteLadies 2015-06-20
You really think your average US soldier would bomb his homeland?
1 Teethpasta 2015-06-20
Okay then guns don't matter because the military is on our side.
4 s70n3834r 2015-06-20
You can destroy a country with those things, but it's still boots on the ground to occupy it; and that's what this is about. Redneck also has an AK-47 out in the truck, BTW.
0 TortugaTerritory 2015-06-20
Don't forget drones.
10 yellowsnow2 2015-06-20
Guns are illegal in Chicago but they have one of the highest gun murder rates in the US,. Taking away guns from law abiding citizens will not effect the flow of guns to criminals.
Even if the fantasy of making guns not available were to happen, then you would just see more bombings which would have a higher death rate than guns. House hold goods are available to everyone.
One man with a gun can control 100 without one. --Vladimir Lenin
Gun control in 47 seconds https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rv7ZXLU51Hs
9 Britt121 2015-06-20
Tons of people are killed in car accidents every year but there aren't calls by the media to outlaw automobiles. Hundreds of thousands of people die every decade from prescription drug issues but no one is getting on their soapbox railing against big pharma. These days, airplanes seem to disappear/explode/crash with hundreds on board and no one is saying to boycott the airline industry or get rid of planes as a form of transportation. Just think the media's obsession with gun violence is unnecessary when there are more people dying from other preventable causes. They clearly have an agenda.
6 WillQuantrill 2015-06-20
Just like the rash of gun violence, and racially charged stories the MSM reports on heavily after a tragedy such as Charleston. I have no doubt they have their agenda and are stoking the flames. Does anyone think for instance Baltimore or Ferguson would have escalated to rioting if every twit cable "journalist" from around the world wasnt covering the situation like some kind of all week MMA event on ESPN? Every country has problems ours is a societal mindset. Not guns.
2 TortugaTerritory 2015-06-20
Obviously, because removing cars would devastate the productivity of the world. For better of for worse, cars (or similar types of transportation) are vital for modern western culture.
32,719 people died in automobile related accidents in 2013 (in US). That's .00103% percent of the population of the US. Source
Less than 25000 people died in 2013 from prescription drug OD (in US). Source. That is ~.00078% deaths per capita.
Less than 1000 people died in civilian plane crashes in 2014. Source According to the US department of transportation, more than 668 million people flew commercially. Source. That means that 0.00015% of flights result in death. That is a phenomenally low percentage.
In total the three things you mention account for ~0.00211% deaths per capita in the US.
Now lets compare that data with gun homicide rates.
Gun homicides in the US are roughly ~0.003% deaths per capita in the US.
Gun homicides alone account for more than all three of those factors combined. Clearly they have an agenda against guns. The agenda is designed to save as many lives as possible. SO SHUT THE FUCK UP.
2 Britt121 2015-06-20
Chicago has some of the tougher gun laws in the country and the gun violence is off the chain. Prohibition never solved the drug/alcohol problem and it won't solve the gun violence problem either. Relax and don't tell people to shut the fuck up- its rude.
0 Osama_Abu_Obama 2015-06-20
You sir...have had too much to think.
8 Dogeholio 2015-06-20
Take the guns away from legal owners and only criminals will have guns.
7 MesaDixon 2015-06-20
The number one problem with gun control laws:
-4 TortugaTerritory 2015-06-20
Good point! Now that I think about it, why should I do anything to stop a criminal at all.
Lock my door? Nope, they can just break in.
Tell my kids to look before crossing the street? Nah, a car could blaze through even if they look.
Yes, criminals can still get their hands on guns even after gun control. But it will be substantially harder if there is gun control.
5 Osama_Abu_Obama 2015-06-20
Yea duh...take Chicago for instance. Some of the strictest gun laws in the country amd nobody ever gets killed there.
3 s70n3834r 2015-06-20
And New Jersey, a notorious mob suburb.
2 MesaDixon 2015-06-20
Why, indeed?
Lock your door? Make it harder for someone to steal your stuff. At what cost? Remembering to lock the door.
Tell your kids to look? To make them aware of what's going on around them and they are responsible for their own safety.
Give up your right to protect yourself? Hmmmm. What are you going to use, harsh language?
One of these things is not like the other.
6 tight_lips_tony 2015-06-20
If we all had guns, then we could be much safer.
-2 tumadreesunmono 2015-06-20
I wouldn't feel safer if every goofball in the US had a gun.
0 tumadreesunmono 2015-06-20
I offer this video as an example to the dorks that downvoted the comment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2eyq9qTOQY
6 Ziroshi 2015-06-20
When you have a full proof plan of getting rid of EVERY gun in the world then you can come for mine. But untill every criminal, citizen, police, soldier, and any one else I'm not mentioning dosent have a gun, then every citizen should have a gun, and it should be strapped to their side for the world to see.
If someone else had a gun in that church odds are the shooter would have been shot long before he could have done the amount of damage he did.
5 swim32 2015-06-20
in japan, where there are extremely tight gun control laws--they have MASS STABBINGS http://www.japantoday.com/category/world/view/28-killed-113-in-mass-stabbing-at-train-station-in-china
-5 TortugaTerritory 2015-06-20
Japan murders per year per capita: 0.3
USA murders per year per capita: 4.7
Their gun control laws seem to be working... unless of course you attribute the extremely low murder rates to something else...
Anime made in japan: yes
Anime made in USA: no
I've figured it out!
1 gocks 2015-06-20
Really? You prefer them to use sarin? Antrax? Knives? Bombs? really?!
1 TortugaTerritory 2015-06-20
Well, yes actually. The idea is that if those things are being used, they will be used at a substantially lower rate than guns.
0 gocks 2015-06-20
Why in the world would they use other means at a lower rate?
You are saying if there were no guns people would stop killing each other?
Really?!
1 TortugaTerritory 2015-06-20
Yeah. I mean, of course it wouldn't stop, but it would be drastically harder to kill someone with no guns.
Without guns there would still be stabbings, poisonings, drownings, all kinds of murder. You can kill someone with a fork. But it's WAY easier to kill someone with a gun than any of those other options.
Would you disagree with that point?
0 gocks 2015-06-20
Really? It is really hard to crash into people with a SUV?
It is not easier to kill someone with a gun. Specially when a victim can shoot back.
-1 FortHouston 2015-06-20
The media has not created a romantic image of Dylann Roof.
-2 TortugaTerritory 2015-06-20
True, I guess I should've been more clear. They SOMETIMES create a romantic image of it. I guess in this case they didn't.
There's this specific youtube video I have in my mind that shows a really good example of this, but I couldn't find it. If anyone knows what I'm talking about or has a link that'd be great.
2 tumadreesunmono 2015-06-20
Charlie Brooker Newswipe
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PezlFNTGWv4
0 TortugaTerritory 2015-06-20
Thank you, that's just what I was looking for.
4 MyFavoriteLadies 2015-06-20
You really think your average US soldier would bomb his homeland?
1 Teethpasta 2015-06-20
I wonder what your definition of winning a war is.