school shooting

[karel]

im shocked that the prissy little snowflake have not made a thread about this and saying its all about gun control,lmfao

[Dukasaur]

im shocked that the prissy little snowflake have not made a thread about this and saying its all about gun control,lmfao

[Bonnie16]

84..uh..so..84..forget it

[ConfederateSS]

--------1941---Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto,"In America, there is a gun behind every blade of grass."-----He really,really did not want to go to war against America...He lived for awhile and graduated from college in America...He tried to tell his leaders... ConfederateSS.out!(The Blue and Silver Rebellion)...

[Neoteny]

What mush-brained gobshit would come to this forum looking for left-wing views. Five years ago, I could expect some backup and not have to respond to a dozen different neckbeards by myself about the president's veiny-ass forehead, but nowadays this forum is about 40% actual fascists, 5% insufferable Russiagate Hillarydems, 25% semi-earnest neocons, 25% lulztrolls (that number has probably always hung around there), and 5% unreadable gibberish (see previous poster). You won't find much left wing thought from that salad.

I'm torn between a few competing threads: I recognize that eliminating handguns in particular, but eventually all guns will go a long way toward eliminating the massive number of gun deaths we see in the US, and one could ride these post-mass-murder waves to effect actual change if our politicians actually gave a shit (which they don't); but leftists still need guns to use to protect against cops and other fascists types; and finally, just give everyone a nuke so we could end this charade already.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

but leftists still need guns to use to protect against cops and other fascists types;

Ah so using firearms to protect oneself against threats? How novel.

-TG

[notyou2]

What mush-brained gobshit would come to this forum looking for left-wing views. Five years ago, I could expect some backup and not have to respond to a dozen different neckbeards by myself about the president's veiny-ass forehead, but nowadays this forum is about 40% actual fascists, 5% insufferable Russiagate Hillarydems, 25% semi-earnest neocons, 25% lulztrolls (that number has probably always hung around there), and 5% unreadable gibberish (see previous poster). You won't find much left wing thought from that salad.

I'm torn between a few competing threads: I recognize that eliminating handguns in particular, but eventually all guns will go a long way toward eliminating the massive number of gun deaths we see in the US, and one could ride these post-mass-murder waves to effect actual change if our politicians actually gave a shit (which they don't); but leftists still need guns to use to protect against cops and other fascists types; and finally, just give everyone a nuke so we could end this charade already.

THE LACK OF LEFT WING ACKNOWLEDGEMENT INDICATES ONE FACT. Oops, not gonna retype that.

The lack of acknowledgement sigifies the end is already fait acompli. Not gonna talk about it anymore, it is slowly being integrated.

[DirtyDishSoap]

I hate the topic. I like my guns, I like to go shooting and shooting shit up.

I don't like being punished for it because some loser that gets picked on in school can't amount to anything other than flippin a burger,

HOWEVER,

I can clearly see that there needs to be some sort of restriction put into place so the mentally ill aka psychopathic lunatics, don't get their hands on something that can cause double digit deaths. Even a semi-automatic can wreak in an enclosed environment, and it's not entirely too hard to take that said semi automatic and turn it into a fully automatic if you're even the slightest mechanically gun savvy. No one is going to show up to your home, notice your rifle and say "I need to look at your trigger mechanism to make sure you didn't turn this into a fully automatic."

Just one of those few topics that no matter which stance I take, I'll make someone butt hurt.

[Dukasaur]

I hate the topic. I like my guns, I like to go shooting and shooting shit up.

I don't like being punished for it because some loser that gets picked on in school can't amount to anything other than flippin a burger,

HOWEVER,

I can clearly see that there needs to be some sort of restriction put into place so the mentally ill aka psychopathic lunatics, don't get their hands on something that can cause double digit deaths. Even a semi-automatic can wreak in an enclosed environment, and it's not entirely too hard to take that said semi automatic and turn it into a fully automatic if you're even the slightest mechanically gun savvy. No one is going to show up to your home, notice your rifle and say "I need to look at your trigger mechanism to make sure you didn't turn this into a fully automatic."

Just one of those few topics that no matter which stance I take, I'll make someone butt hurt.

Thank you! I'm glad that there's somebody who realizes that it's not all-or-nothing. It's not a choice between "let anybody be Rambo" or "confiscate all the guns". It is possible to find a middle ground somewhere, where responsible gun owners can keep their guns while keeping the more irresponsible away from them.

[mrswdk]

[Dukasaur]

For 80 years we've had laws regarding licensing, inspections, and mandatory liability insurance for the other great killer, the automobile, and as yet nobody has tried confiscating all the cars. In fact, there are more of them every year.

The slippery slope argument is bunk.

[ConfederateSS]

---------It has nothing to do about guns...If someone wants to kill...They will find away...
------It has been the break up of "the traditional family"...During and after the Second World War...To many one parent or no parent homes...
------The government and bleeding heart crap..."spare the rod,spare the child"...children are raised,not knowing respect for others...Or consequences for their actions...
-------Just decades and decades of this and here we are...
-------There where no mass,mass, horrible unthinkable such acts 100/150 years ago etc....
------It is time to bring back the rod...Get government out of trying to raise kids, let the people raise their kids ,how it was back in days long ago...
------As for the ill...it might be time for some Darwinism or Ancient Sparta...
------If children don't learn respect and learn consequences early...BOOM 10,20,30 people end up dead years later... .........Get back in the saddle again America, bring back the rod...... ConfederateSS.out!(The Blue and Silver Rebellion)... .......Stop teaching kids everyone's a winner, everyone gets a trophy crap...They need to know failure early also...So when they lose later on in life...We don't have 10,20,30 dead people.......As for the traditional family...I don't think we can ever go back as a society...THAT SHIP HAS SAILED...

[Dukasaur]

---------It has nothing to do about guns...If someone wants to kill...They will find away...

Yeah, if you're desperate, you can beat someone to death with an old toilet seat.

Just try killing 17 people in 2 minutes with used plumbing. I dare ya.

It's pretty certain that some weapons are more dangerous than others, and require a higher level of regulation. When I was a kid, my father the barbarian thought it was funny to blast holes in the wall for wiring with the Lee-Enfield instead of using a drill. That was okay because we were 600 metres from the nearest neighbour. I wouldn't want someone doing that in a high-rise in Toronto.

[Neoteny]

but leftists still need guns to use to protect against cops and other fascists types;

Ah so using firearms to protect oneself against threats? How novel.

-TG

Haha yeah, it really is that simple if you don't have an ounce of empathy in your heart. Fortunately most of us aren't afflicted with that particular disorder, which is why these discussions are so often tipped over when there are dozens of dead children on our doorstep. I can't speak for the right, but the discussion from the left is definitely more complicated that that.

We've seen the power of peaceful protest in the past, but recently we've learned that the police have modified their tactics and the media have no interest in politicizing state-funded murder. And tankies sure like their revolutions. But within the realm of suicide, accidental deaths (so many children) , and even just drunk rednecks or petty disputes, restricted pistol access would save millions. We don't need school shootings and theater massacres to justify gun control, and it won't work anyway since conservatives don't care about dead children (especially when those dead kids are directly from a white nationalist). But there is growing support for lax gun laws on the left, since the right has made it clear they will continue to use theirs for repressive purposes. If only we could get the liberals to wake up to this so they would stop trying to find a centrist answer on this, because there isn't one. We need to get rid of all the guns to protect our citizens, or we need to use them to effect the change necessary to do so. Anything else is watered down politics, and will be uneffective at both goals. The right are happy to keep their intimidation tactics in any form they can. This has to change.

I hate the topic. I like my guns, I like to go shooting and shooting shit up.

I don't like being punished for it because some loser that gets picked on in school can't amount to anything other than flippin a burger,

HOWEVER,

I can clearly see that there needs to be some sort of restriction put into place so the mentally ill aka psychopathic lunatics, don't get their hands on something that can cause double digit deaths. Even a semi-automatic can wreak in an enclosed environment, and it's not entirely too hard to take that said semi automatic and turn it into a fully automatic if you're even the slightest mechanically gun savvy. No one is going to show up to your home, notice your rifle and say "I need to look at your trigger mechanism to make sure you didn't turn this into a fully automatic."

Just one of those few topics that no matter which stance I take, I'll make someone butt hurt.

Guns are awesome and so much fun, but they aren't toys and I mean it sincerely when I say I know you know they shouldn't be treated as such. No patronization intended at all. But the amount of lives at risk are worth giving that up.

The discussion from a mental health perspective is a tricky one. People with mental disorders are so much more likely to hurt themselves than they are anyone else, but the standard NRA catchphrases apply to them too. BURGLAR IN YUR HOUS applies to someone with, say, autism or borderline personality too, and why can't they have the right to defend themselves and their family. Where does one draw the line? Depression? Schizophrenia? Borderline? Generalized anxiety? Autism? Who gets to make that decision? Who even wants to? The correct answer to this particular problem is that we need free and available healthcare so that these people have access to alternatives other than violence alongside restrictions on gun ownership across the whole population to whittle down the number of people capable of these mass shootings and their access to guns. That sentance was too long. We can't eliminate massacres altogether of course, but their number could be drastically reduced.

[mrswdk]

For 80 years we've had laws regarding licensing, inspections, and mandatory liability insurance for the other great killer, the automobile, and as yet nobody has tried confiscating all the cars. In fact, there are more of them every year.

The slippery slope argument is bunk.

They've confiscated your freedom to drive at top speeds. Once self-driving cars become commonplace they will confiscate your manual cars, and eventually everyone will be getting transported around in autonomous pods that the police can hijack, lock and director to their killing camps while you bang on the inside screaming for help except no one can hear you.

[DirtyDishSoap]

Guns are awesome and so much fun, but they aren't toys and I mean it sincerely when I say I know you know they shouldn't be treated as such. No patronization intended at all. But the amount of lives at risk are worth giving that up.

The discussion from a mental health perspective is a tricky one. People with mental disorders are so much more likely to hurt themselves than they are anyone else, but the standard NRA catchphrases apply to them too. BURGLAR IN YUR HOUS applies to someone with, say, autism or borderline personality too, and why can't they have the right to defend themselves and their family. Where does one draw the line? Depression? Schizophrenia? Borderline? Generalized anxiety? Autism? Who gets to make that decision? Who even wants to? The correct answer to this particular problem is that we need free and available healthcare so that these people have access to alternatives other than violence alongside restrictions on gun ownership across the whole population to whittle down the number of people capable of these mass shootings and their access to guns. That sentance was too long. We can't eliminate massacres altogether of course, but their number could be drastically reduced.

Punishing a majority for a minority is never a great answer. Again, completely understand that changes need to be made, but taking away all firearms from every single citizen should be a complete last resort.

Great answers for this would be educating people in the use and safety of firearms. If everyone is as gun-ho as they say they are, this should make sense. Your kid learns how to properly use a gun that every American has a right to until they prove otherwise. No big deal to me, right? Of course you'll have conspirator loons and skeptics of the worst kind ruin what could be a potentially good thing; "America is militarizing our children!"

The other great answer to this as mentioned above with "prove otherwise" are those that are mentally ill. If you trust a man with severe PTSD coming home from several wars with a firearm, you're putting a lot of faith into them. Everyone does of course have the right to defend themselves, but I wouldn't risk everyone's safety over that one man who could prove to be incredibly more dangerous than your everyday home burglar. You can free up the healthcare all you'd like, but it doesn't magically cure someone of their PTSD, or their autism, or from being a psychopath. We already can see a pattern with these mass shootings that folks like Cruz who exhibited enough for a concern prior to the shooting, Devin Patrick Kelley, a veteran and shooter of the Sutherland Springs Church suffered some serious mental issues, Chris Harper-Mercer also suffered from being mentally ill. Umpqua Community College shooter, will cause harm to others if given the opportunity. Why give them it?
Those are all incredibly recent.

Of those, the two that I glossed over from recent memory is the Las Vegas shooter, which just happens to be one random guy with no criminal or mental health history, and the Orlando club shooter whom was, for all intents and purposes, a terrorist.

One very last issue that I have is with the media. Not with false reportings, but naming the shooter, covering it extensively, death/casualty toll, etc. A lime light for these sick fucks just so one more loon can look at the news and say "hold my beer, watch this."

I don't have the answers to everything. I wouldn't start with taking everyones guns away first though. If it comes down to it though in the long run because we're consistently fucking up, then fine, take the damn thing, I'll just switch over to porn and shoot at targets with my globs.

[Bernie Sanders]

They need some type of stronger restrictions on semi automatic weapons than can hold 30 rounds.

I was sort of shocked when my son showed me his new AR 15 with all these gadgets that he bought to modify it. Even though he trained in the martial arts, boxing and extreme fighting, he's a pacifist.

Yes and he has a gun carry permit for over 40 States.

The fascination with guns is shocking!

[mrswdk]

They need some type of stronger restrictions on semi automatic weapons than can hold 30 rounds.

Maybe they should consider legislation to stop people buying landmines and rocket launchers too. Only in 'Murica.

Punishing a majority for a minority is never a great answer.

So presumably you would argue that all security measures at airports should be scrapped? i.e. getting onto a plane becomes just the same as getting onto any other public transport - you simple stroll up with your ticket and passport and climb on

[DirtyDishSoap]

The TSA regularly fails. Its theater security. That's it.

[mrswdk]

But even if the TSA was successful in catching all hazardous materials being brought onto planes, you would still argue that the TSA should be scrapped because good passengers are being punished for the acts of a minority of bad ones.

[DirtyDishSoap]

If they were successful, that'd defeat my argument, but they aren't and my point still stands.
So yeah, scrap em.

[mrswdk]

If they were successful, that'd defeat my argument

So if gun controls were successful in curbing gun violence, wouldn't that also defeat your argument?

[Dukasaur]

For 80 years we've had laws regarding licensing, inspections, and mandatory liability insurance for the other great killer, the automobile, and as yet nobody has tried confiscating all the cars. In fact, there are more of them every year.

The slippery slope argument is bunk.

They've confiscated your freedom to drive at top speeds. Once self-driving cars become commonplace they will confiscate your manual cars, and eventually everyone will be getting transported around in autonomous pods that the police can hijack, lock and director to their killing camps while you bang on the inside screaming for help except no one can hear you.

Yes, we lack the freedom to drive on our local highway as if we were on driving the Le Mans Grand Prix. On the other hand, we are more or less free to choose our favourite route to work. Which is precisely my point -- it isn't all-or-nothing. It isn't a choice between absolute unrestricted freedom and total subjugation to regimentation. We can decide, as a social democratic society, to curb some of the more dangerous freedoms while retaining others.

As for the self-driving cars and the next step in loss of independence: that's a little beyond the scope of this thread, but, yes it will happen, except nobody will confiscate your car. Consumers will gradually choose the convenience of auto-auto over the hassles of doing it yourself. A few crabby old men like me will hold out, growling "I'm smarter than those idiot robots" and continue doing it ourselves until the end, while our grandchildren laugh at us. You probably carry around a police tracking device right now. It's called your cell phone, and the police have the ability to tap into it and see where you are right now. You can disable the GPS functions, except almost nobody does. The vast majority of people choose convenience over privacy. They let their phones broadcast their location so that they can order a pizza or a taxi faster, and so it will go with the auto-autos. People will have the option to retain that particular freedom, but for the sake of convenience they will willingly choose to give it up.

[mrswdk]

Yeah but my phone can't kidnap me and drive me to an abandoned warehouse.

btw i am not been srs about dis

[mrswdk]

Chinese master race