Michael Bloomberg's "100 school massacres since Sandy Hook" claim thoroughly debunked

[Nakura Chambers]

Ah, to your first paragraph I won't even humor with a response because that's the typical NRA talking point.. i will say this though.. At what point does your love for guns trump another person's right to live?

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but did you note express a similar sentiment earlier in this thread:

You say that like it's a bad thing..

To answer your question, there is no reason to believe that owning (or "loving") guns inherently causes people to be killed.

To your second paragraph.. If only background checks were as thorough as you claim they are. Oh and since you didn't seem to get it in my previous post.. The mental health system has been thoroughly gutted by the Republican Party of which most of the people in said political group are staunch supporters of the NRA. Now try to reply again, with less stupid this time k?

Of course the system isn't nearly as thorough as I described it in my post. I was referring to what the system would most likely be like after a few decades of gun control reform, bringing the United States in line with most other developed countries. A system where gun ownership (including handguns and semi-automatic weapons) are legal, but owners must undergo background checks, training and licensing before owning a firearm. A system which in the United States could result in an eventual ban on at least some firearms.

The National Rifle Association is fairly non-partisan and endorses (as well as funds) both Democratic and Republican candidates. It is entirely possible to hold a "conservative" view on one issue, but a "liberal" view on another. Also, there's no need to result to personal attacks.

[Depakote]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but did you note express a similar sentiment earlier in this thread:





Of course the system isn't nearly as thorough as I described it in my post. I was referring to what the system would most likely be like after a few decades of gun control reform, bringing the United States in line with most other developed countries. A system where gun ownership (including handguns and semi-automatic weapons) are legal, but owners must undergo background checks, training and licensing before owning a firearm. A system which in the United States could result in an eventual ban on at least some firearms.

The National Rifle Association is fairly non-partisan and endorses (as well as funds) both Democratic and Republican candidates. It is entirely possible to hold a "conservative" view on one issue, but a "liberal" view on another. Also, there's no need to result to personal attacks.

To first post.. Ah but you eluded to that being bad.. you're contradicting yourself without really answering any of my questions..Typical :/

Oh and to suggest that the NRA is non partisan is personally insulting to my intelligence. The NRA cares only about the NRA and anyone who digrees with them can go to hell, least that's the mentality they portray. Oh and as for personal attacks, I haven't done any of those yet. I'm just stating the obvious fact that you're either ignorant of reality or willfully stupid. You pick which one.

[Shocktroop]

Bloomy was a horrible elitist Mayor of NYC, with a gigantic ego. His gun control advocacy is commendable, though. I don't see how "debunking" one isolated statement he made defeats the well-meaning intention behind his convictions. Also, it is arguable that lack of gun control can be blamed for some of the incidents that the OP claims were "debunked". Bloomberg isn't stupid, he may feel entitled to define gun violence differently than the OP, though. One thing pro gun advocates don't like to acknowledge is that in places where no guns exist no one gets killed by one. It's that simple.

Cant tell if trolling or stupid.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Yes it would be a bad unprofitable thing that would neuter the NRA/gun industry (same thing). Fortunately tons of people in both major parties recognize the importance futility of not diminishing the 2nd Amendment.

There we go.

[iceberg265]

I think it's sad that the number of school shootings has become an issue of semantics.

This is really all that needs to be said on this thread.

[Omega10]

The best part about threads like this is it shows to just what extremes pro gun advocates will go to in order to defend people that shoot random people with guns, and to make it more possible for others to do this as well. Thanks for giving more advertising for the Bloomberg report, and bringing attention to just how many people get killed by people with guns.

[Henrrique]

Cant tell if trolling or stupid.

That's easy. Your're stupid.

[lockedout]

This is pretty low, even for Bloomberg. The vast majority of the incidents in his his were proven to be false, for a number of reasons:

1. A shooting never actually taking place.
2. The shooting was done by a police officer or security guard.
3. It was an inner city gang incident against a single student.
4. The incident not taking place at or near a school.
5. The school he claims the shooting occurred at doesn't actually exist (he made it up).
6. The incident was an accidental discharge by a police officer, security guard or licensed civilian.

What do you guys think of Bloomberg's lie? Given this and previous blatantly untrue comments by Bloomberg (and others), do you think he's harming his own movement's search for credibility?

Some sources:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/11/us/sch...ber/index.html
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014...what-he-found/
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...Didn-t-Happen/

I think he wants to take everyones guns because he can afford to hire people to carry his for him.

[Beat5beat]

His gun control advocacy is commendable, though.

Is it? Because he comes across as a hypocritical douche bag to me, considering he has several personal body guards who carry guns.

Is his stance "I get bodyguards with guns, because I need protection, you people on the other hand are just lowly peasants, so you don't get guns to protect yourself."
Or perhaps you can shed some light on this hypocritical douche bag for me.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Why would a major politician need armed bodyguards? I mean it's not like there are psychopaths who own guns that could potentially kill him.

Wait, we're talking about a sane country right, and not one that has gun homicide rates of a third world country?

[Zoranon]

That's easy. Your're stupid.

If I had your posting history, I would not be casting stones.

Anyhow, I cannot see how anyone can be surprised that Bloomberg is a liar, who twists the reality to suit his needs.

[Beat5beat]

Why would a major politician need armed bodyguards? I mean it's not like there are psychopaths who own guns that could potentially kill him.

Wait, we're talking about a sane country right, and not one that has gun homicide rates of a third world country?

Right because those psychopaths don't kill regular people.... shit argument. Either you are for guns or you are against guns. He's just a hypocritical elitist piece of shit that wants different rules for him than what applies to the people who are beneath him.

I'm not even for guns, it would be great if they didn't exist (however I feel that as long as anyone has guns, everyone of sound mind should be able to have guns) Bloomberg pretending that his life somehow has more value than anyone else's, screw him. He's a disgusting filthy hypocrite.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Right because those psychopaths don't kill regular people.... shit argument. Either you are for guns or you are against guns. He's just a hypocritical elitist piece of shit that wants different rules for him than what applies to the people who are beneath him.

I'm not even for guns, it would be great if they didn't exist (however I feel that as long as anyone has guns, everyone of sound mind should be able to have guns) Bloomberg pretending that his life somehow has more value than anyone else's, screw him. He's a disgusting filthy hypocrite.

You can be against guns because of the sheer number of deaths they cause every year, and still protect yourself. Unless you're suggesting there's a better way to fight an armed assailant.

[Independent voter]

I was going to say like a dozen. A school shooting has to be a kid with a gun shooting teachers or classmates otherwise the term has lost its meaning.

That is weird how everyone turns a blind eye to gang violence. 500 dead in Chicago alone last year. Barely covered in US or international press.

[Cyberowl]

2. The shooting was done by a police officer or security guard.
3. It was an inner city gang incident against a single student.
(6. The incident was an accidental discharge by a police officer, security guard or licensed civilian.)

How are those not real school shootings?...

[Beat5beat]

You can be against guns because of the sheer number of deaths they cause every year, and still protect yourself. Unless you're suggesting there's a better way to fight an armed assailant.

There will ALWAYS be people with guns, there will always be armed assailants. So, he gets to arm his bodyguards with guns to protect himself, but other "regular" people can't arm themselves with guns to protect themselves?

It seems like to me "self defense" is a big argument for a lot of PRO gun people. It seems like some hyprocrites want to disarm the general populace (you know, those unwashed masses of filthy peasants who shouldn't dare be allowed to protect themselves from armed assailants, after all it's just animals killing each other) Meanwhile making sure they have their guns so they can protect themselves.

I don't know how I can make this any clearer. This is like saying "I'm against eating meat, but since slaughterhouses already slaughter tons of animals and the meat is already there, I'm going to eat it" It OOOZES hypocrisy, just like Bloomberg.

[Radux]

We have a mega thread for the exact purpose of news like this. Please take the discussion there.

Closed.