No they don't.
You are just pulling a whataboutism. Lefties have ideas about gun control they think will help with mass shootings and ideas they think will help with gang shootings. Saying what about gang violence completely ignores that. It is just a dihonest smear tactic against lefties. You can disagree with their beliefs on how to solve the problems but claiming they don't care about gang violence is just a lie.

And I am definitely not a lefty, I just don't accept dishonest arguments, even when they favor my side.

But you are dishonest.

You're pretending to "help" us but it's very clear what your real agenda is.  See "concern trolling"

All the left cares about is power and it will kill and destroy whatever is in its way to achieve it.

There is no middle ground.

But you are dishonest.

You're pretending to "help" us but it's very clear what your real agenda is.  See "concern trolling"

All the left cares about is power and it will kill and destroy whatever is in its way to achieve it.

There is no middle ground.

You have to laugh out loud at that "I am definitely not a lefty". 
This clown has been pushing the HPD/statist angle for years now.

But you are dishonest.

You're pretending to "help" us but it's very clear what your real agenda is.  See "concern trolling"

All the left cares about is power and it will kill and destroy whatever is in its way to achieve it.

There is no middle ground.

I am not being dishonest. I truly believe the stubborn, do not give an inch, attitude is going to sink this ship. I am going to lose more gun rights through that avenue than I would through rational thought and discussion. The uncompromising stubborn emotional idealism of the far left exists in the far right as well and it is going to hurt our gun rights.

Hmmmmmm....there is gang gun related problems? I havent been told this by the media yet, or things like keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.


They dont care about gang violence or the drug problem. What theyre doing or lack there of shows it. Actions speak louder than words.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

I don't know what you have been watching but I have seen numerous instances of the media covering gun violence and gun control as it relates to hang violence problems.

It may not get the national attention as often because the body counts are usually lower and they are usually criminal on criminal but there is most certainly coverage as well as legislative responses taken at local levels.

I don't know what you have been watching but I have seen numerous instances of the media covering gun violence and gun control as it relates to hang violence problems.

It may not get the national attention as often because the body counts are usually lower   and they are usually criminal on criminal but there is most certainly coverage as well as legislative responses taken at local levels.

Please see WEEKLY weekend homicide stats of Chi-town, Philly, Baltimore etc... 

I don't know what you have been watching but I have seen numerous instances of the media covering gun violence and gun control as it relates to hang violence problems.

It may not get the national attention as often because the body counts are usually lower and they are usually criminal on criminal but there is most certainly coverage as well as legislative responses taken at local levels.

Just the national news on the main TV channels 1003-1008.  You know, the one that lots of Americans get their info from.

I am not being dishonest. I truly believe the stubborn, do not give an inch, attitude is going to sink this ship. I am going to lose more gun rights through that avenue than I would through rational thought and discussion. The uncompromising stubborn emotional idealism of the far left exists in the far right as well and it is going to hurt our gun rights.

Would you lose the right to posses a handgun mag or rifle over 10 rds?  Would you lose the ability to posses an AR15?  How about body armor?  If anything, you would lose the right to posses a P80 for now, which has passed HI law regardless of ones employment status.  We are not stubborn.  Look at it this way, so much has been taken away that many people are not willing to give any more.

"well guys it was nice having rights but a small group of psychotic billionaires who already labeled us domestic terrorists want us to give them up so I guess that's the right thing to do" 

we have given up many inches...and most here are Asian...so not much to give up...

we have given up many inches...and most here are Asian...so not much to give up...

heads

Please see WEEKLY weekend homicide stats of Chi-town, Philly, Baltimore etc... 

Body counts of individual shootings. You aren't seeing 20 innocent people dying in one gang shooting very often ( if ever)

Would you lose the right to posses a handgun mag or rifle over 10 rds?  Would you lose the ability to posses an AR15?  How about body armor?  If anything, you would lose the right to posses a P80 for now, which has passed HI law regardless of ones employment status.  We are not stubborn.  Look at it this way, so much has been taken away that many people are not willing to give any more.

There are a few thing I would be willing to give up based on the logic of where I would draw the limits of firearm rights (since it has to be drawn somewhere).
I would not give up ar-15s or higher capacity magazines or body armor. I would not give up the ability to manufacture your own firearm but maybe some regulations are appropriate here, I don't have set ideas on this one yet.

The media is labeling everything as a mass shooting.
It's the catch phrase that ensures revenue clicks.
In fact, any internet article that has mentions or displays a gun is going to generate revenue clicks.

Body counts of individual shootings. You aren't seeing 20 innocent people dying in one gang shooting very often ( if ever)

This is the argument that I often get from the people who want to take your guns away. The immediate death count is more important than the annual. So 20 killings in 1 sitting is greater than 6,000 a year. Logic at it's finest.

The media is labeling everything as a mass shooting.
It's the catch phrase that ensures revenue clicks.
In fact, any internet article that has mentions or displays a gun is going to generate revenue clicks.

This is why I often use the phrase "active shooting". Because mass is defined by FBI as 4 or more involved (includes gunman, so 3 other people involved).  And typically a mass shooting, the purpose isn't to kill as many as possible, often it's a few individuals and there just happens to be others around. Example would be the shooting across the Blazdell a few weeks ago. The shooter was not targeting the 15 people standing around. Compare this to an active shooting at a school or business (uyesugi style) where the shooter shoots anyone they see.

Weird how our lawmakers didn't label the Blazdel shooting as a mass shooting.

#1:

The worst mass shooting in recent recorded history took place in Kenya on April 3, 2015. On this dire day, 148 people
were killed in a terror attack committed in the name of the Somali Islamist group al-Shabab. The gruesome killing had
four gunmen target students and staff who self-identified as Christians. Victims were asked on the spot whether they
were Muslim or Christian. Depending on how they answered, they were killed in broad daylight or let go.

Why kill? The perpetrators said they were retaliating for acts of violence committed by Kenya’s security forces in the
country.

#2:

On December 16, 2014 scores of innocent students and staff at the Army Public School, which is run by the military in
northwestern Pakistan, were attacked and killed. Seven armed assailants shot 141 people to death, mostly children. It
was a horrific blood bath.

Why commit such an atrocity? This mass shooting was a heartless act done to get back at the Pakistani military for killing
Taliban fighters in a prior attack in the Khyber area and North Waziristan.  Pakistan had previously been accused by many
world leaders of not dissuading the Taliban from acting within its borders. Attacks such as this one bring to light the inner
tensions that a country like Pakistan lives with, and how hard it can be to do the right thing.

#3:

ISIS claimed responsibility for this next horrendous event in France. Spanning two days from November 13 to 14, 2015,
assailants shot and used explosives that killed 130 people in Paris, and wounded 494 others. People in restaurants, a
concert hall, a sports stadium, and just on the sidewalk were the defenseless targets. The shooters attacked with assault
rifles, and as suicide bombers. In the end, a three-month national state of emergency was declared in France and security
laws were tightened.  These included giving authorities more ability to block websites that promote terrorism, to carry out
searches without warrants, and to place suspicious people under house arrest.

In 2019, the US had the highest number of mass killings ever recorded in a single year in the country, with 41 events and 211
people killed.

Yep, 211 deaths caused in 41 separate events.  Not exactly up there with the top 3 mass shootings, are they?

In fact, the US comes in at #6 with the Las Vegas shooting, #9 at the Orlando Night Club, #12 with the VA Tech shooting and #14 at Sandy Hook Elementary.

Since the list was compiled in 2020, obviously the recent Uvalde shooting isn't mentioned.  Given the 21 fatalities reported, that would make the list -- tied with the San Ysidro McDonald's Massacre in California in 1984.

The list spans almost 40 years starting in 1982, and it lists the top 51 worst shootings in the ENTIRE WORLD.

Making mass shootings into a uniquely United States epidemic is not only dishonest, it diverts attention away from other violence that could actually be prevented more easily than these rare events.



https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-deadliest-mass-shootings-in-history.html

#1:
#2:
#3:
Yep, 211 deaths caused in 41 separate events.  Not exactly up there with the top 3 mass shootings, are they?

In fact, the US comes in at #6 with the Las Vegas shooting, #9 at the Orlando Night Club, #12 with the VA Tech shooting and #14 at Sandy Hook Elementary.

Since the list was compiled in 2020, obviously the recent Uvalde shooting isn't mentioned.  Given the 21 fatalities reported, that would make the list -- tied with the San Ysidro McDonald's Massacre in California in 1984.

The list spans almost 40 years starting in 1982, and it lists the top 51 worst shootings in the ENTIRE WORLD.

Making mass shootings into a uniquely United States epidemic is not only dishonest, it diverts attention away from other violence that could actually be prevented more easily than these rare events.



https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-deadliest-mass-shootings-in-history.html

Don't forget the 51 Christians killed 10 days ago in, I can't remember.  I wanna say Somalia.  It was at a church.  And gun reform was done there prior to this.  Guess they didn't have a Jack Wilson in the building

This is why I often use the phrase "active shooting". Because mass is defined by FBI as 4 or more involved (includes gunman, so 3 other people involved).  And typically a mass shooting, the purpose isn't to kill as many as possible, often it's a few individuals and there just happens to be others around. Example would be the shooting across the Blazdell a few weeks ago. The shooter was not targeting the 15 people standing around. Compare this to an active shooting at a school or business (uyesugi style) where the shooter shoots anyone they see.

Weird how our lawmakers didn't label the Blazdel shooting as a mass shooting.

I saw one report talking about how we had 200 mass shootings this year and when I looked into the data one was in Hawaii, it was the shooting on the west side where a guy killed someone trying to rob him. 4 people were shot total so they called it a mass shooting but it was a gunfight between a robber and a normal citizen.  2 bad guys and 2 good guys. Only one bad guy died.

This is the argument that I often get from the people who want to take your guns away. The immediate death count is more important than the annual. So 20 killings in 1 sitting is greater than 6,000 a year. Logic at it's finest.

I think you misunderstans.

That is not an argument for gun control of any type, that is merely an explanation of why some shootings get more attention than other shootings.

#1:
#2:
#3:
Yep, 211 deaths caused in 41 separate events.  Not exactly up there with the top 3 mass shootings, are they?

In fact, the US comes in at #6 with the Las Vegas shooting, #9 at the Orlando Night Club, #12 with the VA Tech shooting and #14 at Sandy Hook Elementary.

Since the list was compiled in 2020, obviously the recent Uvalde shooting isn't mentioned.  Given the 21 fatalities reported, that would make the list -- tied with the San Ysidro McDonald's Massacre in California in 1984.

The list spans almost 40 years starting in 1982, and it lists the top 51 worst shootings in the ENTIRE WORLD.

Making mass shootings into a uniquely United States epidemic is not only dishonest, it diverts attention away from other violence that could actually be prevented more easily than these rare events.



https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-deadliest-mass-shootings-in-history.html

You are conflating two different issues though. Those top 3 you listed were terrorist attacks, very different than our problem with mass shootings the USA.