When Will We Reach A Tipping Point?

Posted by | July 27, 2015 08:49 | Filed under: Alyson Chadwick Contributors Opinion

Republish
Reprint



I don’t know if we are living in a period of more or less violence than the times before or what will happen in the future.  I do know that we are living in a country (if you are in the United States, any way) where approximately 2.6 people are killed each day by the police.  In tennis, we are currently in the “Open Era.”  In life, we should refer to this as the “Mass Shooting Era.”

According to the Washington Post, during the first 204 days of 2015, we have averaged one mass shooting a day.  Let that sink in.  One. Goddam. Mass. Shooting. A. Day.  Seriously, if I were a leader of ISIS, I wouldn’t worry about killing Americans on American soil, I’d stop planning that and remind my followers, “We don’t need to kill Americans, they’re killing themselves.”  If this were a biological model, I would say Americans have exceeded their carrying capacity.

Yet, gun control remains the holy grail of progressive politics.  President Obama has said that not getting anything done for this is the biggest failure of his presidency. Today, I heard part of a heated debate on having guns in movie theatres where the gun rights supporter said things like, “you know you can fire guns in the dark.”  Wow, thanks, Captain Obvious.  His point was, I think, that we should allow everyone to have guns in movie theatres because then a fellow citizen cold have taken the gunman out.  This led to the conversation about what about cops who aren’t in uniform or what if the police burst in just as someone in regular clothes went to “take out” the gunman and didn’t know who the bad guy was. My head went to some movie about the wild west where everyone had guns and the whole place got shot up.

That’s the America I want to live in.  It’s Rick Perry’s America, too.  What is wrong with us?

Some people have said they are concerned about going to the movies now.  What happens when people stop going to other businesses?  When the DC sniper was active, it shut most of the area down.  People cancelled plans to visit the area.  And that was two people in a car, shooting random people at gas stations and outside malls.  The area economy took a huge hit.

When will mass shootings do the same thing?  When will people stop spending money at stores?  When will businesses tell the NRA, “Look, we appreciate your views stem from an opinion of gun rights that was formed when the army used muskets but we’re losing business because modern people are scared of being killed by a crazy person with an assault weapon.  So please stop opposing reasonable measures to prevent mass shootings.”

When will that exchange occur?


Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2015 Liberaland
By: Alyson Chadwick

Alyson Chadwick is a political/news junkie and New Yorker transplanted to Washington, DC and currently working in Florida. Her career has included work on five presidential cycles, both sides of Capitol Hill, the 2012 Democratic Convention, Clinton White House, United Nations and multiple local and statewide campaigns. She is also a sad Met fan, which could be the most redundant sentence ever.

65 responses to When Will We Reach A Tipping Point?

  1. Anomaly 100 July 27th, 2015 at 09:32

    Well said. I can imagine gun enthusiasts in the theater wearing night vision goggles just waiting for someone to pounce. That’s not a movie. That’s insanity.

    • Alyson Chadwick July 27th, 2015 at 12:27

      It’s probably already a movie in production. Maybe Clint Eastwood is producing it.

      • Anomaly 100 July 27th, 2015 at 12:46

        Here’s a Twitter user gunsplaining to me why guns in theaters is an awesome idea.

        • Larry Schmitt July 27th, 2015 at 17:11

          So you’ll be able to see your victim just before you blow his/her face off. How comforting.

    • You just say Bingo.... July 27th, 2015 at 21:12

      night vision doesn’t work in movie theaters….you have been watching too many movies..

  2. crc3 July 27th, 2015 at 10:21

    “Take out” the NRA and there is a chance something positive may happen. Otherwise we are f**ked…

    • Alyson Chadwick July 27th, 2015 at 12:27

      I dunno, the NRA made sense once, a long time ago. Maybe they just need, hell,I have no idea what they need. Some sanity juice?

      • crc3 July 27th, 2015 at 12:44

        It all boils down to money. The gun and ammo manufacturers give big bucks to the NRA to stand firm. Then in turn the NRA uses some of that money to “buy” or “pay off” our so-called government leaders to not act on new legislation that would tighten the grip on gun buyers and sellers. Eliminate the NRA (not happening) and real legislation will happen. Otherwise….

  3. Tommie July 27th, 2015 at 10:26

    Money is more important than lives, people are not being held accountable for buying or giving guns as presents, for people who should not have a gun in the first place. Find and prosecute places that allow you to buy a gun even if you have a record. Instead of arresting people for petty stuff, use resources to find the real criminals who are flooding our streets with guns! IMO!

  4. Snick1946 July 27th, 2015 at 11:00

    Good point, things will only change due to economic pressure, when folks stop going out to public places such as theaters or malls due to fear of violence. Then watch how fast some common sense gun legislation gets passed, once corporations start to feel pain.

  5. Dwendt44 July 27th, 2015 at 12:00

    Even with 90% supporting universal background checks, nothing happens. The power of the NRA to scare the crap out of Congress is amazing and disturbing. There is no limit that will get them off the ‘more guns are better’ meme. The rest of us will have to learn to dodge, duck, or hide until sanity comes to Washington D.C..

    • Alyson Chadwick July 27th, 2015 at 12:25

      We need to work to send sanity to Washington, DC. It’s not likely to get there on its own.

  6. David Ish July 27th, 2015 at 13:36

    Maybe if the kids of the NRA etal leaders have the kids kill each other they will.
    But Freud said guns are a sign of their “wangs”

  7. illinoisboy1977 July 27th, 2015 at 13:50

    Rather than trying for “gun control”, why don’t we implement “mental health control”? If someone is proven to be a danger to himself or others, put him/her in an institution and give him/her the specialized care he/she needs. Compassionate, considerate, COMPETENT care. If we can afford to send tens of billions of dollars to countries that hate us, surely we can afford secure mental health institutions for those who have been judged dangerously insane. Such measures, combined with comprehensive mental health checkups and counseling services, would go a long way toward reducing the numbers of mass shootings, in this country.

    • Bunya July 27th, 2015 at 15:00

      You’re missing the point. People are responsible gun owners, until they’re not – then it’s too late. People end up dead. The jails are full of responsible gun owners who angered easily, and a loaded firearm was within their reach.

      • illinoisboy1977 July 28th, 2015 at 10:40

        The jails aren’t “full” of “responsible gun owners”. The numbers show that a very small minority of “responsible gun owners” wind up committing a crime with their firearm. It’s nothing like the anti-gunners make it sound, as if almost everyone who has a firearm is destined to turn it to a nefarious purpose. That kind of rhetoric is nothing more than fear mongering.

  8. Robert Kennedy July 27th, 2015 at 14:22

    The problem is that those considered mentally unstable almost never shoot anyone. The problem is with gun nuts, not crazy people, although I can’t imagine what the difference is other than legal niceties.

    • dewired4u July 27th, 2015 at 14:47

      The mentally unstable with guns do kill people and them selves so the problem is keeping guns away from them.

      • Robert M. Snyder July 27th, 2015 at 15:14

        In 2012, 64 percent of all gun deaths were suicides.

        I have personally known five men who committed suicide using guns. I do not think that any of them were mentally unstable. They just didn’t think that life was worth living any longer.

        Some people jump off of bridges. Some people swallow a bottle full of pills. You said that guns should be kept away from people who are mentally unstable.

        Questions:

        1. Is everyone who decides to end his life mentally unstable?

        2. Should mentally unstable people also be kept away from bridges and pills?

        3. If some people committing suicide are not mentally unstable, should they be permitted to use a firearm, or be forced to use a bridge, pills, or other means?

        4. If some people who are not mentally unstable choose to use a firearm to commit suicide, how do those deaths bolster the case for restricting access to firearms?

        • Bunya July 27th, 2015 at 15:39

          1. No, some have terminal diseases.
          .
          2. Yes. All that can be done to save these people should be done. Suicide, IMO, is a cry for help.
          .
          3. Nobody should have access to firearms except the law and the military.
          .
          4. See #3.

          • Robert M. Snyder July 27th, 2015 at 15:49

            Okay, so let’s suppose that I have a terminal illness and I am not a member of law enforcement or the military. I am mentally stable and I make a rational decision to commit suicide. Under your rules, I am not permitted to use a gun. Why not?

            • Bunya July 27th, 2015 at 16:03

              Why would you do that? Think of the mess you’ll leave for your family and loved ones. Now, if you want to use a gun to kill yourself, that’s your prerogative, but it would be more considerate, I think, to use pills. Also, it could be safer to others around you who become unintended targets and get in the way of your discharged bullet.

              • Robert M. Snyder July 27th, 2015 at 16:31

                How many people are accidentally killed by people who commit suicide using a gun? I’ve never heard of a single case.

                One of my dad’s best friends had Multiple Sclerosis. He was in his late sixties. One morning he parked his truck along a road, walked into the woods, sat down by a waterfall, and took his life using a shotgun. A lot of his friends and relatives were shocked and hurt. But we are talking here about whether or not the government has any business interfering in these matters.

                You have suggested that it would have been more considerate of him to use pills. That is debatable. Pills take time to work.

                Suppose someone had discovered him and tried to save him. He might have survived, but with severe problems which might then have been a burden to his family. Jumping off a bridge carries the same risk of survival with serious injuries. If someone really wants to end it all, I think a strong case can be made for using a firearm because it is (usually) quick, certain, and painless.

                So let’s get down to brass tacks. My dad’s friend owned a shotgun that he used for hunting. He had a terminal disease. He decided to end it in a secluded place using his shotgun. Why is that any of your business?

                • Bunya July 27th, 2015 at 16:38

                  It’s none of anybody’s business. I just think that if someone is hell bent on killing themselves, I would think they’d be a bit more considerate and not subject their loved ones to the aftermath. My best friend took her own life by overdosing on prescription medications. When they found her, she looked peaceful. Imagine what someone would look like with their head blown clean off. I can’t even imagine it, and I hope I never have to see something like that.

                  • Robert M. Snyder July 27th, 2015 at 16:50

                    “BTW, it’s unlikely, but possible, that someone can end up being collateral damage in a suicide.”

                    You’re right. If someone takes an overdose of Rx meds and then a friend finds them and calls 911, the ambulance could be involved in a fatal accident while traveling to the patient’s home or to the hospital.

                    There is no way to commit suicide that is completely free of risk to others. I suspect that greatest risks occur when someone discovers you still alive and other people take great risks in order to save your life.

                    I seem to recall a case in which a man jumped from the Tappan Zee bridge in an attempt to rescue a woman who had jumped in order to commit suicide. As I recall, they both survived, but with terrible injuries. So her botched attempt was certainly not free of risks to others.

                    Returning to the main issue (gun control), if 64% of gun deaths are suicides, then it would appear that a gun is a suicide device that is also used for other purposes. I know that guns are not marketed in that way, but statistically speaking, that’s the reality.

                    So if you want to restrict access to guns, you are effectively restricting access to suicide devices. I think that changes the debate. Why should the government concern itself with the means by which rational people commit suicide?

                    • Bunya July 27th, 2015 at 17:02

                      That’s right. I’m all for restricting access to guns, and if someone wants to kill themselves, they can find another way. But to make guns accessible to everyone just in case somebody may have a death wish, is unacceptable.
                      .
                      Firearms are so easy to operate, even a dog can discharge one. So imagine the catastrophe if a 5-year-old gets his hands on a loaded gun and turns it on his friend. That’s not only devastating to the family of the victim, but also on the poor 5-year-old who can’t understand what just happened.

                    • Robert M. Snyder July 27th, 2015 at 17:10

                      “I’m all for restricting access to guns, and if someone wants to kill themselves, they can find another way.”

                      Okay. You are being consistent, and you have every right to your opinion. I am in favor of some restrictions. For example, I think that a gun safety course should be mandatory. But I live in a rural area where lots of people enjoy hunting and gnu crime is rare. So you and I have a difference of opinion about who should be permitted to own guns. We’ve both heard all the arguments for and against, so I won’t attempt to persuade you. I thought that maybe you’d see a problem with restricting the means available to people committing suicide, but you’re being very consistent, so we just have a difference of opinion.

                      Thanks for engaging on this issue.

                    • Bunya July 27th, 2015 at 17:24

                      My problem is this; no matter how many gun safety courses one takes, no matter how many precautions are enforced, somebody, somewhere is going to get angry enough to kill someone, and having a gun handy sure gets quick results, but the consequences are devastating. Once somebody is shot dead, it’s a little too late to say “oops, I shouldn’t have done that”.

                    • Robert M. Snyder July 27th, 2015 at 17:52

                      A local excavator once had an argument with his wife and got so angry that he went outside, started up his front end loader, picked up the corner of his house, lifted it off the foundation, and shook it up and down, with his wife inside.

                      Some people do crazy things when they’re angry. They also do crazy things when they’re in a hurry. I am always amazed when I’m driving in dense fog and someone passes me like I’m standing still.

                      I would rather live in a world where people have maximum personal freedom, and we try very hard to encourage people to behave responsibly. Freedom and responsibility go together. Having said that, I am not an absolutist. I don’t want my neighbor to have nuclear weapons. And if my neighbor were mentally unstable, I would not want him to have a firearm. So I am sympathetic to your arguments.

                      I guess we just have different thresholds, and I think this may be related to our life experiences. Bernie Sanders has alluded to the cultural aspect of the gun control issue. People living in rural areas seem to have a very different assessment of the relative risks and benefits of gun ownership. Do we need a uniform set of laws for every community in the USA? Maybe urban areas need tighter restrictions that rural areas.

                      I think population density is a big factor. On a commercial airliner, the population density is extremely high. If you pass gas, other people suffer. So even natural bodily processes need to be self-regulated out of concern for others. I live in a county that has a population density of 73 persons per square mile. Around here’s it’s pretty much “live and let live”. Guns are simply not a problem.

                • dewired4u July 27th, 2015 at 16:47

                  Ever cleaned up after someone who blew their head off?

                  • Robert M. Snyder July 27th, 2015 at 17:03

                    “Ever cleaned up after someone who blew their head off?”
                    Ever cleaned up after someone who crashed a motorcycle and was not wearing a helmet, or someone who jumped off a bridge and landed on the rocks below?
                    We can all agree that family and friends do not deserve to be subjected to these kinds of gruesome scenes. But that’s not the issue. We are talking about gun control. 64% of gun deaths are suicides. A gun is a suicide device that is also used for other purposes. It is not marketed in that way, but that’s the reality. So the question is whether the government has any business regulating the manner in which rational people choose to commit suicide. Firearms appear to be the method of choice for people who choose to commit suicide. Why should someone who has made a rational decision to end his life not be permitted to use a firearm? Who are we protecting? The person has decided to end his life. That’s a given. Whether he uses a gun or is forced to use some other means is nobody else’s business as far as I’m concerned.
                    Suppose you have a close friend who has suffered for years with a terminal illness. One day he tells you of his plan to end his life using a shotgun. Of course you try to talk him out of it. But after several lengthy discussions, you become convinced that he is making a rational decision. At that point, are you going to try to convince him to use pills instead of a gun? Why on earth would you do that? And why is it any of your business?

            • dewired4u July 27th, 2015 at 16:46

              You’re dead?

            • Dwendt44 July 28th, 2015 at 12:24

              I’m sure there are several reasons. One certainly is ‘where else might that bullet go’. Using a gun is rather messy, both for medical types that have to clean up after, and the family who has to deal with the after math.
              It gives the idea to others that it’s the easy way out. Quick and supposedly painless.
              When a gun is involved, police often spend a great deal of time and effort to make sure it WAS a suicide and not a homicide.

              • Robert M. Snyder July 28th, 2015 at 13:09

                I agree with everything you wrote, but it doesn’t change the fact that most gun deaths are suicides, not homicides, and that most men who commit suicide choose to use a firearm. So restricting access to guns would not only affect people who are contemplating a homicide, but also affect people who are contemplating a suicide. Maybe that’s a good thing, but it has to be considered as part of the overall picture. If guns were completely eliminated, we would very likely see an increase in suicide by other means. That may lead to an increased number of botched suicides, which could be far more burdensome for families and medical personnel than a messy, but successful, gun suicide.

          • You just say Bingo.... July 27th, 2015 at 21:15

            uhh…no….
            1. free country and you are pro choice… who are you tell someone what they can or can’t do to their body…besides suicide is legal.

            3. why should only the military and police have guns…according to some the police are killing too many people…

        • dewired4u July 27th, 2015 at 16:45

          1. There are no absolutes
          2. You can’t buy a bridge, not all pills will kill you
          3. Google ” Oregon death with dignity act ”

          4. you are talking in circles

        • greenfloyd July 27th, 2015 at 21:56

          I think you are going way off topic… the OP is addressing “mass shootings” and police killings, not suicide. A person who kills a bunch of people and then themselves is not a suicide, just like a “suicide bomber” is not a suicide, it’s just plain old disgusting murder!

        • StoneyCurtisll July 27th, 2015 at 22:36

          Every time I see your flagella less sperm cell avatar…
          I know an Impotent comment and many more are sure to follow…
          Grow a tail and do something right.

          • Robert M. Snyder July 27th, 2015 at 22:44

            Impotent: lacking power or ability, without force or effectiveness.
            Go ahead and attack me, while failing to engage in a meaningful discussion of the issues. How utterly spineless.

            • StoneyCurtisll July 27th, 2015 at 22:48

              I commented on your Avatar…
              And your comments, ” lacking power or ability, without force or effectiveness”..
              And lets be honest..
              It represents you well…

            • StoneyCurtisll July 27th, 2015 at 22:55

              Idare not get involved/engage with anything you suggest..
              I dont what to know you, I dont want to be in your social group..
              I do not want to be #6 of the “guys you know who shot themselves/Suicide)”…

        • StoneyCurtisll July 27th, 2015 at 22:45

          What is it that makes your male companions what to kill themselves via a firearm?…
          5 of them seems like a possible predisposition to suicidal tendencies while being within your social group..
          Do you feel any personal responsibility?
          or just shrug it off?

          • Robert M. Snyder July 27th, 2015 at 23:08

            Four of the five were older men (60+).

            One had MS. Nice guy. Family man. Always made you feel good.
            My dad had spoken to him the previous evening about a project. Normal conversation. No signs that anything was wrong.

            One lost his wife and did not want to go on living without her.

            One was in good health and his wife was also healthy. Nobody really understood why he did it.

            One (a relative) had been a lifelong alcoholic, domestic abuser, and child abuser. He was just a miserable SOB.

            Some of these men were probably depressed. But it would be a stretch to say that they were mentally unstable. I think each of them just decided that their quality of life was not what they wanted and they did not see any way that it would improve.

            So if someone makes that determination, of course we would all try to talk them out of it. We would all encourage them to look on the bright side. we might also encourage them to seek medical or psychological help. But there is a point at which many people decide that life is just not worth it any longer.

            Does the government have a right to take steps to prevent a suicide? And if a person has a right to end his life, does the government have a right to prevent his using a gun as opposed to some other method?

            I prefer to err on the side of liberty. I prefer to see my fellow citizens given as much freedom as possible, as long as they are not interfering with anyone else’s rights. If a person wants to commit suicide and they want to use a firearm to do it, if they are mentally stable and this is what they truly want, then I believe we should allow them that right. And I do not think that THOSE gun deaths should be treated as a problem.

            If you think that the suicide rate should be zero, then you are implicitly suggesting that any time someone chooses to end his life it is because we have failed him in some way. But many problems just can’t be fixed. It’s not a perfect world. And sometimes people have lived a full life but see nothing but pain in the future, and make a rational decision to end it. I choose to respect their rights.

            • StoneyCurtisll July 27th, 2015 at 23:37

              I thought I made it clear..
              I do not what to know your personal stories..
              I do not want to be in your social circle..

          • whatthe46 July 27th, 2015 at 23:46

            LOL

  9. dewired4u July 27th, 2015 at 14:38

    What amazes me is that there aren’t more mass shootings than we have because we are a country of 321 million people many are heavily armed and we are politically and socially divided to the point of violence.

  10. Bunya July 27th, 2015 at 15:06

    I think we’ve reached the tipping point 300,000 deaths ago. It’s very sad that, in this country, it’s harder to obtains a hairdresser’s license than a license to own a killing device. Outrageous.

    • starskeptic July 27th, 2015 at 16:06

      ‘Tipping point’ meaning that some real change takes place – which hasn’t happened yet.

      • Bunya July 27th, 2015 at 16:19

        We’re way past due for change. There are roughly 32,000 gun deaths per year in the United States. That’s unacceptable, unless of course you’re with the NRA or you’re a gun nut, in which case; “WE’RE #1! WE’RE #1!”

        • starskeptic July 27th, 2015 at 16:23

          Past due for change is not the same thing as change.

          • Bunya July 27th, 2015 at 16:33

            I think that our regulars know what I meant.

            • starskeptic July 27th, 2015 at 16:37

              So the point of the article stands, “What will it take?”

        • You just say Bingo.... July 27th, 2015 at 21:11

          Suicides don’t count so its more like 11,000 a year

          • Dwendt44 July 28th, 2015 at 12:14

            But suicides would drop with tighter gun control. People may still try to kill themselves, but the alternatives to a gun is slower, thereby giving the person a chance to change their mind or think a bit before death happens.

  11. amersham46 July 27th, 2015 at 21:55

    But the people in Congress do not see a problem , we just need more guns on the streets

  12. burqa July 27th, 2015 at 22:05

    If one seeks to make the point that this should be named the “Mass Shooting Era,” it would be helpful to include stats that show this period being distinct from others in terms of gun-related violence.
    “Tipping point”? Nice sound-bite expresssion, but what does it mean?
    I am going to hazard a guess and say it is a point where everyone finally says enough is enough and then proceeds to do……..what, exactly?
    If we were to close the gun show sales loophole and require training of every gun owner and have background checks galore, limit the size of magazines, etc., I think we would still have a large percentage of the gun-related violence we have today. I think legislation along these lines would, at best, have only a temporary effect.

    There are other countries like Switzerland, Finland and Israel where there are high rates of firearms ownership and far lower rates of gun-related violence than what we have here. For some reason, the lesson here is that the society itself is a greater factor than just making guns more or less available. This lesson seems to be difficult to learn.
    So, sure, we can work legislatively to do what can be done, but we should be under no illusions that we can legislate ourselves into being a less violent society.

    If we just want to throw spit wads at right wing gun nuts, and pretend we’re really motivated by a concern for those killed by guns, we should go ahead and be honest about that.
    But if we really do want to reduce the amount of violence we need to address the violent nature of our society. Right now the NRA has a lot of pull in Washington, but they can’t stop the sort of social movement that turned drunk driving from a joke where we give shots or other strong drinks to drivers at the door, insisting they have “one for the road” to where we have increased penalties, something called “designated drivers”, and a general social opprobrium.

    After the Colorado theater shooting, Newtown, Va. Tech and other instances of mass murder, many wondered if we had reached this notion of a “tipping point.” Looking back we see the answer to that question. Maybe we should quit looking for a single incident whose emotional impact is so great we can take advantage of it to get laws passed we could not get otherwise. After all, our government was designed to prevent such a thing from happening.

  13. StoneyCurtisll July 27th, 2015 at 22:29

    If the Chattanooga movie shooter had a kitten instead of a gun..
    And enough of those theater goers also had open or concealed carry kittens..
    The worse case scenario would have been some scratches.,.
    maybe a little poop to clean up..
    Better than 2 dead and 9 wounded.

  14. greenfloyd July 28th, 2015 at 00:09

    Thank you Alyson Chadwick for a thought provoking article… it’s also very nice to see some original content on this site with an author as accessible as you seem to be.

    If we strip away the suicides by gun along with deaths attributed to “accidents,” I think we’ll find another factor, too often over looked, yet very much related to a significant percentage of gun deaths and injuries every year. It does get difficult explaining some of the cross-over effect, like police shootings and what I suspect is a major contributing factor, the role of what I call Gangsta-culture.

    There has been some heated debate over my use of that term, Gc for short. Some people here are sure I’m a “racist.” (As I am almost certain you will soon see below.) Feel free to read my Disqus profile if you want to look at my mostly failed attempts to provide a fuller definition of what I mean by Gc. Preconceptions aside, Gc is multi- national, racial, ethnic and represents the full spectrum of humanity’s grimy underbelly.

    More to the point, Gc is “mass shooting” happening in slow-motion, at multiple locations in dribbles and drabs of unsolved homicides, stranger-on-stranger shootings, kidnappings, armed robberies gone very bad, murder-for-hire or obvious revenge, mysterious ER visits with shooting or stabbing wounds yet the patient refuses to identify themselves, the “drive-by,” or “drug-related” or “gang-related,” etc…

    Sometimes it’s not in slow-motion and suddenly Gc violence becomes a real-time “mass shooting.” Case in point, July 4th, Chicago, in a city park an unknown number of people apparently firing weapons into the air or otherwise indiscriminately, at last count 10 killed and over 50 wounded. http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/fourth-of-july-weekend-violence-shootings-chicago-311639971.html

    As far as I can tell the July 4th massacre had nothing to do with race, or politics. It wasn’t the KKK, or so-called “Islamic State.” It wasn’t a failed background check system or even the dreaded NRA. Police found several guns, all of them either stolen or registered to someone other than the holder, or connected to other crime scenes. Behind a large table covered with 30 rifles and hand guns, the Chicago police chief told reporters this cache represented only 1 day of illegal gun seizures, that’s 10,950/yr.

    So it seems to me the obvious question should be how do we disarm Gc?

    Sorry to go on so long, but you inspired me.

  15. StoneyCurtisll July 28th, 2015 at 00:43

    When Will We Reach A Tipping Point?

    When does the House of Cards collapse?…

    House of Cards..

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6c1uzNymHwk

  16. maggie August 29th, 2015 at 02:33

    exactly

Leave a Reply