MovieChat Forums > Under the Gun (2016) Discussion > Even the summary starts with a lie

Even the summary starts with a lie


"a drastic rise in mass shootings...."

There were 4 in 2015.

Yes, 4.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/12/04/mother-jones-left-claims-355-mass-shootings-2015-actual-number-4/

There was no drastic rise. The only drastic rise is the leftists in the media and government blaming harmless gun owners for the acts of thugs who they refuse to put, or keep in prison. Crying constantly for more gun laws, but won't enforce the thousands of gun laws already on the books. Dropping gun charges in cases involving violent criminals left and right... Blaming the NRA for felon gang members stealing guns and shooting another idiot gang member.

The list that the libs like to reference that says there were over 300 mass shootings is ridiculous.

So, unless you want to completely change the definition of "mass shootings" to include even instances where two or more people were injured... The FBI definition is 4 or more killed in one event. It's been that way since they started using the term and tracking the numbers.

A drive-by where two people are injured by gunfire in Chicago in separate houses on the same street is not a mass shooting. Yet, such instances crowd the stupid list on shooting tracker.

I also read one where 4 people were hit by shotgun pellets from far away. Two didn't even need medical care. Two received medical care for non serious injuries.

That's not a mass shooting.

Liberals...skewing numbers, making up words, changing definitions, calling apples oranges. Anything to get their anti-rights message to spark fear in the ignorant.

Gun violence has steadily fallen since the mid 90's. Read the latest FBI study. Do the numbers... Hillary includes suicides, which account for 60 percent of gun deaths roughly every year, in her "x many people are killed by guns every day" When someone shoots themselves, it's not the gun's fault, or gun owners, or the NRA. It's moronic to include suicides when crying for people's constitutional rights to be stripped away.

There's no epidemic. Except in places with the most restrictive gun laws in the country, like Chicago, Baltimore, etc. Imagine that!

Liberals constantly cry about gun shows... Studies show that guns used in crime that were bought from a non-dealer at a gun show are very uncommon. (the only way to buy a gun at a gun show without a background check is from someone who is NOT a dealer)

Thinking background check laws will stop a gang member from stealing a gun or buying one on the street is some fantasy-land idiotic dream. Proof? Chicago. Baltimore. D.C. St. Louis. New York. There's all the proof anyone should need.

This fictional piece of leftist propaganda is failing miserably, and rightfully so. But watch, even though the people involved broke multiple gun laws, none of them will even get a slap on the wrist. Nor will the hag in charge face any real consequences for lying and manipulating the footage, because liberal sheep think it's OK to lie when it comes to stripping law abiding gun owners of their rights.

So which is it libs? Do we need more gun laws and better enforcement of them? Only when it suits you, or should they go after the liars who made this piece of trash?

I already know the answer... I don't know if he will win, and I'm no fan, but you idiots deserve Trump. After 8 years of the bleeding heart, SJW far-left, maybe 4 or 8 from the far right will cancel out the wussification of this country.

reply

And your sources seem to be the self-deluded bubble-livers raised on a diet of 100% Fox News...
Just a quick search of one of those communist muppety namby-pamby-girly-liberal sources you despise so much [The Huffington Post] showed me immediately what i expected to see; a headline reading:
"Breitbart Does What It Usually Does About Guns -- Gets It Wrong"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-weisser/breitbart-gets-it-wrong_b_6287942.html
.....and whilst i was going to continue with other communist-sourced retorts to show your feeble-minded reactionary exaggeration, but then i couldn't be arsed, because there's just no conversing with caricatures like yourself, so i took a sh*t instead.
Dumbass

We think it's important.....
We think it means something...

reply

Did you even read the article you posted? Or the one he did?

I assume you didn't go further than the title, as the Huffington post article article boils down to "A Breitbart writer mis-attributed the restrictions he is complaining about to a 1968 law, when it is actually a 1938 law that introduced the restrictions".

It's not anywhere near the earth-shattering revelation that you make it out to be, and does nothing to dispute the claims the op or the Breitbart writer makes, other than to point out that the writer was wrong in the past.

In fact, the mass shooting data was not complied by the writer (rendering moot the criticism of him having been wrong before).

It actually comes from a mother Jones report (which is NOT a gun friendly news source). The Breitbart writer merely comments on an article written by one of the reports creators, which heavily features information from the report.

It looks quite foolish for you, because one of your "communist muppety namby-pamby-girly-liberal sources" - as you sarcastically put it - is exactly what the guy was posting.

Dumbass.

reply

still think there is no rise? you retarded missinformed brainwashed moron.

reply

Google: "mass shootings 2015"

According to the Tracker's data, which defines a mass shooting as an incident in which at least four people are killed or wounded, there were 372 mass shootings in the U.S. in 2015, killing 475 and wounding 1,870

That's not FOUR mass shootings.

You're entitled to your own opinion; not your own facts.

reply