“I know common sense gun policies save lives. Christopher lost his voice much too young. But I didn’t lose mine. … We need gun safety in this country, it’s clear that we have mass shooting, after mass shooting, after mass shooting. It’s so staggering that you don’t even remember the number, you don’t even remember the names.” – Christine Leinonen in Florida gun laws have not changed much since Pulse shooting [via theindychannel.com]
This isn’t lord of the rings. A gun doesn’t make those people’s decisions for them. They made their own decisions. Gun regulations isn’t the answer to amoral people or crazy people. Guns aren’t the root problem.
So what, are you saying it’s wrong to fondle your revo lver in the dark and call it ‘my precious’?
Not…”wrong”…no…
Why do you ask?
If that’s so wrong, I don’t want to be right…
LOL.
Hey, Governor! Point your telescope at something other than my house, dammit! /;-)
It’s interesting how the gaystapo will bend over backwards to avoid blaming the very people who want to throw them off of buildings.
I’ve been puzzled by that for a long time now. The LGBTXYZ crowd is up in arms about Trumps travel ban even though Islam is supposed to be anti-gay. Why support someone who will not support you?
Insensitive but would she rather her son have been run over by a truck or stabbed to death?
Um, yes. Duh!
Those are much more humane methods of murder, because the victim is less dead, which makes it easier for their families to cope with their death. So, yes.
Hes not dead, only mostly dead?
It’s a much less violent death don’t you know a van kills you once a gun kills you three times more!
If you mean instead of being killed by someone using a gun when we refuse to understand WHY the perp did it? Yes, yes she would.
If he’s killed by a vehicle, we understand (we are told all the time) that the vehicle went out of control, and did whatever. Obviously not the driver’s fault.
As for being stabbed, such deaths don’t make the headlines much (in comparison to deaths by shooting)(even though they are actually more common) so to the person on the street, they aren’t the same problem as shootings; they just don’t make the headlines.
So, yes, she would feel better.
The fact that so many shootings are called “senseless” adds to the problem. We will be told that, even if the shooter actually tells us why the shooting was done, we don’t know the actual reason.
Having a loved one killed for no reason hurts more than having a loved one killed for a reason. I’m not sure why, but it obviously does.
Would it make you feel any better, little girl, if they was pushed out of windows?
“Common sense gun policies” and “gun safety” my ass.
Dear, I’m sorry for your loss, but I know that common sense terrorist policies save more lives than the nonsensical ideas you wrapped up in the Democrats’ Madison Avenue sloganeering.
Is anyone else starting to feel like the QotD has turned into the Two Minutes Hate? Every so often, we get a pro-gun quip, but the majority are these inane “gun safety” types that we have pre-programmed responses for. I didn’t even need to read the comments today to know what they were going to say. Would it be possible to mix it up a little more with something humorous or educational? I doubt spouting the same canned responses to anti’s droolings are very helpful.
Especially when it’s not like any antis are reading this.
Don’t forget the other side has pretty much 24/7/365 hate via the MSM, HuffyGlue, colleges, etc.
Perhaps the thought is to remind some of us what kind of crazy we’re up against.
That’s what I was thinking. It’s a “stay woke” reminder for the PotG.
Two Minutes Hate, Jolly Roger Out? Don’t be ridiculous. I’ve hated them my whole life.
Hate is a pretty powerful motivator for clicks. It’s sound business. Also that which makes it a powerful motivator for clicks makes it more likely that the good people at TTAG want to share it regardless of the sound business aspect of it.
Here is a youtube video about why things that make one angry is more likely to be shared: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc
Emotional tributes. Maybe this is the solution to violence with guns?? It’s never a good idea to base legislation off of emotions and emotional response.
It is if you are the politician advancing said emotional legislation and that increases your power or gets you re-elected.
+1
If these people really believed what they say they would move to another country that already have the laws they want.
Good luck convincing bad people to give up their weapons – you have my full support. Oh wait, you want _us_ to give up our weapons? Nevermind, go away.
I’d upvote you to the moon if that feature was enabled.
Did she ever consider the fact that the pulse killer went through so much training, background checks, and investigations (the same hoops they want everyone to jump through), yet was still able to commit mass murder, and that whatever “hashtag: commonsensegunsafteyforthechildren” nonsense she wants to enact probably wouldn’t have done jack-squat to prevent what happened.
Or the fact that France’s strict g un laws didn’t stop the terrorists there from getting their hands on AK47s. Of course we have the ATF to thank for one of those, but still…
If I remember correctly they did have to make a trip to Belgium to get those AKs.
See, gun bans work!
And border security.
Oh, wait, this is the EU. There are no borders.
And she still can’t bear to name “Islamic terorism”…I’ll keep my guns loser.
She’s right, we do need gun safety. We nees to go back to have marksmenship and gun handling classes in schools. We need to go back to NOT demonizing a tool. Maybe if kids had a healthy respect for guns, they would be LESS in lined to shoot up thier schools. Nothin like a healthy dose of repect and knowing what the consequences of pulling the trigger TRUELY are!
You know im not sure i buy this. You would think if that was the case a mass shooting would end in a freak out after the first shot for effect.
They don’t.
I agree starting training at 8-10. But, i think these older kids have just gone mental.
” You would think if that was the case a mass shooting would end in a freak out after the first shot for effect.
They don’t.”
Actually, they do, just not on the part of the shooter.
The shooter is usually someone who is fairly familiar with the tool being used. The lack isn’t of training with the gun, but rather a lack of training in being a good person.
Once you understand that liberals are ruled by their emotions and not intellect. It makes it easier to understand why they can’t accept facts. Common sense plays no part in their lives. Individual responsibility is foreign to them. They can’t accept that people are responsible for their own actions because that would mean they can’t be controlled. There biggest fear is that they can’t be trusted with their own lives so they want someone else to protect them from themselves.
Too many to remember how many it’s been or not enough to justify your agenda?
Say how many Drunk drivers killed people this year? How many ODs? How many kids have attempted or committed suicide because of social media? How many misdiagnosis killed or caused life long complications?
Ban alcohol outside the house! Ban drugs! Ban the first amendment! And for the love of God and the children ban the doctors!
Ban the 1A is a pretty good analogy because a pretty good argument could be made that banning all Muslims would reduce terrorism, but such an argument would be rejected out of hand because it violates the free exercise of religion found in the Constitution. The implicit reasoning is that there are some things we value more than security. Those things are personal liberties and limited government.
It doesn’t matter if the law would even work. Such a law infringing on our personal liberties is wrong. Such a law expanding beyond its agreed to limits government is wrong. And when the law doesn’t even work (gun control), the law is even more wrong. Doing a bad thing is worse when it has second order negative consequences. Doing a bad thing isn’t good just because it might have beneficial consequences. The ends do not justify the means, especially when the ends are not justified themselves.
“Police willingness to save your hide changed very little since Pulse shooting”
FTFY, and I’ll continue being ready to save my own hide
I see no such evidence Ms. Leinonen.
As for the Pulse Nightclub attack in particular, common sense self-defense policies (armed patrons and patrons who fight back with whatever improvised weapons they can acquire rather than doing nothing and letting the attacker slaughter people without resistance) and common sense police policies (go in immediately rather than waiting three hours) would have saved a LOT of lives. Where are your calls for such policies Ms. Leinonen?
More importantly, let’s say that just one more law (in addition to the thousands of laws already on the books) would actually make firearms disappear in the U.S. as Ms. Leinonen envisions. How is that going to save lives when terrorists and spree killers simply use alternate methods (e.g. fire)? And what about the countless violent crime victims who will have no viable way to stop violent attacks on themselves — what about all of those shattered and lost lives?
Here is the truth: the overwhelming majority of violent crime victims who suffer grievous injuries or die at the hands of their attackers are unarmed and have no effective way to defend themselves. Such people share just as much responsibility for their trauma as someone who drives around the highways at top speeds in winter because government snow plows are supposed to keep the roads clear — even though actual road or weather conditions make it obvious that you must substantially reduce your driving speed.
I have a 1911 so I think I have the gun safety bases covered. Two manual and one firing pin safety as it’s a series 80. I’m not really one for “safe action” nonsense. If you want to go that route I think a nice long pull like on a double action revolver will do nicely. If it’s kept at home in either case I would recommend storage in a security holster as well.
But maybe I’m missing something. Perhaps Ms. Leinonen would suggest an improvement? She did say gun safety right? As in accident prevention? Because last I checked the pulse night club thing was quite intentional. No one was accidentally shot as I recall. I could be mistaken though.
What is “gun safety? Christine Leinonen talks about it but doesn’t give a discription on how “gun safety” would have prevented the shooting. The killer worked as a security guard from 2007 on. The FBI investigated him, put him on the “No Fly List” then concluded he was “full of bluster.” His guns were legally bought and had no modifications.
Given all the investigation, background checks and whatever, it’s had to imagine what else could be done for “gun safety.” The next step would have to be psychological examinations. You can imagine how that would go over. Plus, psychology isn’t great at predicting future actions. Arguably, given road rage, reckless driving, and DUIs a case can be made to examine drivers.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-orlando-cellphone-20160615-snap-story.html
“Gun safety” is the latest progressive-speak for gun control. It has nothing to do with our use of the term. “Gun safety” as they use the term is not safety at all.
See also the way they use the term “common sense” to mean something which they do not want to discuss, because they want us to think it has already been completely decided, when in fact it is still a hotly contested point. Whereas everyone else uses “common sense” to mean something that is known by the vast majority of folks in the country. “Common sense” gun control makes no sense at all.
my definition of gun control is target accusation trigger control and firearm safty… more background checks won’t don’t don’t shit… guess what criminals don’t do background checks… they don’t get ccwp and they don’t give a shit what’s beyond their target…the guns not the problem it’s the evel mf behind the trigger…
Responsible American citizens who understand the responsibility of owning a firearm, the meaning of their machine of choice, in the context of our civil rights and the enshrined vector of self defense against a tyrannical government = gun control. WE CONTROL OUR GUNS BECAUSE WE DECIDE WHEN TO USE THEM, NOT THE GUN ITSELF. All liberal noise to the contrary is worse than a trouser cough; just a bunch of hot air and corruption.
If she doesn’t like the way people do things down there, maybe she shold move her liberal ass to California or some other blue shithole where she can indulge in her illusion of safety.
Yes, we need more people learning to use guns and carry them safely — and doing so.