Mass Shootings

[Pato del Muerto 52321]

25 minutes ago, safe sex said:

You have to get the tip of the wedge into the issue first, then the rest can follow

[C-Man 26991]

1 hour ago, Bama Chick said:

Where did you read that?

 

 

 

 

I *think* he sent the text that he was suicidal and going to shoot up the bank to his friend right before the attack.

[RomaVicta 29756]

2 hours ago, C-Man said:

 

Just read some of the responses to that on Twitter.

This is what we're dealing with. This person seems to assume that, just as he would, we will all defend the acts of any Dem. Further, any Dem wanting gun control is now made a hypocrite because a Dem perpetrated the slaughter. They project partisan cohesion that is the very essence of how they define themselves.

"No surprise"? Really? I suppose it was no surprise that a troubled transexual broke the long streak of hetero men responsible for so many mass shooting deaths.

It's full blown Aggy. There is no coming back from that. I hate the thought that Aggies may actually become more accurate representations of my state than non-Aggies. I never saw it coming.

 

 

 

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

1 hour ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

One of the reasons why I come back to this analogy a lot is because it illustrates how our language obscures the nature of the conflict and prevents progress. The "centrist" or "moderate" position between the two above camps is ... what? Oh, right - letting homeless people set up camp in approved areas to sleep in their own piss.  

The centrist or moderate position between gun fetishists and prohibitionists is likewise retarded - that we can hit the wayback machine to 1994, sprinkle in some voluntary bureaucratic novelties, and that will make a meaningful difference.

 

You have no meaningful position here. You decry fetishists (of which you are one), prohibitionists and centrists while you continue to stockpile your toys so you can play cowboys and Indians. 

How about you fuck off?

[DDD Dad 14167]

Just now, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

You have no meaningful position here. You decry fetishists (of which you are one), prohibitionists and centrists while you continue to stockpile your toys so you can play cowboys and Indians. 

How about you fuck off?

Wow.

I'd get this if it was one of our regular trolls, but do we really need to lash out like this here?

I understand this is a raw subject and emotions are frayed, but BC generally posts thoughtfully in here (deconstructed burgers aside). 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

My proposal here is to make magazine fed semi auto rifles > .22lr a class three firearm like the M60 or any other fully auto firearm.  It’s not a complete ban, but over time it will dramatically reduce the the number of ARs/AKs in circulation. 

Edited April 11, 2023 by Hugo Stiglitz

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

5 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Wow.

I'd get this if it was one of our regular trolls, but do we really need to lash out like this here?

I understand this is a raw subject and emotions are frayed, but BC generally posts thoughtfully in here (deconstructed burgers aside). 

Sorry if I've offended your sensibilities. 

[Pato del Muerto 52321]

7 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

My proposal here is to make magazine fed rifles > .22lr a class three firearm like the M60 or any other fully auto firearm.  It’s not a complete ban, but over time it will dramatically reduce the the number of ARs/AKs in circulation. 

Magazine fed semi auto specifically?  Or even bolt and lever action that have mags?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

1 minute ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Magazine fed semi auto specifically?  Or even bolt and lever action that have mags?

Semi auto only

[Pato del Muerto 52321]

That’s how you end up with belt fed ARs. Unless belt fed is already higher regulated. 

[956 Worldwide 34313]

This isn’t a mass shooting, but it’s related. Two dads get in a road rage incident, both of their daughters (14 and 5) get shot. The person who first fired his weapon and hit a kid will not be charged because the other dad threw a water bottle at the shooters’ car and under “Stand your Ground” the shooter had the right to fire back. 
 

https://nypost.com/2023/04/10/charges-dropped-against-dad-in-florida-road-rage-incident/

Truly, on this issue we are the stupidest of countries. 

 

[pyrohornIII 4801]

3 hours ago, BrickHorn said:

Thats a completely different point. Democrats have attempted their proposed solution (gun control measures) and have been opposed by Republicans on that front.

By contrast, Republicans invoke mental health purely as a smokescreen - it’s not a problem they have any desire to address. They just throw out meaningless words and catchphrases to end or sidetrack the discussion. 

The idea that Democrats are equally to blame because they haven’t attempted to fix gun violence by addressing the Republicans’ preferred pretext is just complete bullshit. Democrats have tried to fix the problem by working on what they believe is the most effective solution. It’s not their job to also fight Republicans to implement the Republicans’ disingenuous policy distraction for them, too.

Yeah, we saw this in Texas when they cut mental health care funding for k-12 schools.  

 

 

[Brian Fantana 6654]

2 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I agree with the idea that Republicans are the sole obstacle to gun control of any kind. I do not believe that simply reinstating the assault weapons ban will meaningfully change the accelerating pattern of violence in our society or the volume of private despair. 

Maybe not at this point, but maybe ask yourself who are we hurting if we try? There is plenty of empirical data out there that shows the immediate and steep rise in mass shooting fatalities in the years following the expiration of the assault weapons ban.

There is plenty of empirical data from around the world, such as the regulations imposed by the Australian government after the culmination of their own mass shooting epidemic.

You are right about one thing, though, which is it may simply be too late. Wealth inequality and other aggravating factors are ramping up significantly and there might be no coming back at this point.

[InkaUtexas 25423]

DC. 

 

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

29 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

This isn’t a mass shooting, but it’s related. Two dads get in a road rage incident, both of their daughters (14 and 5) get shot. The person who first fired his weapon and hit a kid will not be charged because the other dad threw a water bottle at the shooters’ car and under “Stand your Ground” the shooter had the right to fire back. 
 

https://nypost.com/2023/04/10/charges-dropped-against-dad-in-florida-road-rage-incident/

Truly, on this issue we are the stupidest of countries. 

 

those poor girls ended up getting shot because their Dads never grew up. 

Cowboys and Indians.

[956 Worldwide 34313]

Honestly, there just needs to be a meaningful W on the issue. A marker down that the gun lobby can lose, that the country won’t fall apart. That the vast majority of people won’t notice, that even most firearm users won’t be meaningfully affected. 
 

And a real, meaningful ban on semi-automatic weapons with high-capacity magazines will absolutely make a dent in the carnage you see at schools and other places targeted by angry shooters as opposed to crime related and DV killings. It would have to have teeth. As in, no grandfathering and exceptions. Turn them in. Show a receipt and get paid, no receipt and you get a flat rate. After the date, you go to jail for possessing. 

I have really evolved on this, I really can’t see how an appeal to theoretical freedoms outweighs the overall benefit of getting these weapons gone. I’d be fine if you were able to keep them as part of joining a state guard type program or active reserve. Let’s be Switzerland on this. 

[956 Worldwide 34313]

Just now, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

those poor girls ended up getting shot because their Dads never grew up. 

Cowboys and Indians.

In most cases normal countries this ends with dads throwing hands and being embarrassing and arrested but we really, really, really like it for every mental midget to be armed. Something something polite society. 

[Guest]

35 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

This isn’t a mass shooting, but it’s related. Two dads get in a road rage incident, both of their daughters (14 and 5) get shot. The person who first fired his weapon and hit a kid will not be charged because the other dad threw a water bottle at the shooters’ car and under “Stand your Ground” the shooter had the right to fire back. 
 

https://nypost.com/2023/04/10/charges-dropped-against-dad-in-florida-road-rage-incident/

Truly, on this issue we are the stupidest of countries. 

 

So much to unpack there.

- "Hale tried to run Allison — who was driving a Nissan Murano with two passengers — off Highway 1 near Calahan with his Dodge Ram pickup truck, which had four passengers, police said."

- "Both drivers had concealed carry gun permits and no prior criminal records."

- "The suspect threw “a stone or other hard substance” – actually a water bottle — at Allison’s SUV, “which would produce the death or great bodily harm,” officials reportedly said.

Allison “reasonably believe[d] that using or threatening to use deadly force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm,” according to the documents.

Criminal defense attorney Janet Johnson told the news outlet: “Some people would say well water bottles shouldn’t be more aggravated than a gun but under the case law that the state cited a water bottle is considered a deadly missile.”

[Guest]

‘The Sound Of Gunfire Doesn’t Dismiss You, I Do,’ Says Teacher Forcing Class To Sit Back Down In Desks

HOUSTON—Scolding her class for jumping to their feet prematurely, local teacher Jana Stoebel reportedly stated, “The sound of gunfire doesn’t dismiss you, I do,” on Tuesday, forcing the students to sit back down. “Did I say you could get back up?” said the stern 4th-grade instructor, who told her class there would be plenty of time to barricade themselves behind her desk after she finished assigning their fractions unit homework. “I don’t care how many gun shots just rang out, get your butts back in your seats this instant. No, you may not jump out the window. Do you think your middle school teachers are going to tolerate you getting up during a mass shooting like this? No. I’m the authority in this classroom, not the gunman.” At press time, Stoebel had confiscated the shooter’s gun and sent him to the principal’s office for making too much noise in the hallway.

https://www.theonion.com/the-sound-of-gunfire-doesn-t-dismiss-you-i-do-says-1850284188

 

[Bozo_Casanova 26232]

2 hours ago, BrickHorn said:

Fuck off with your Anastasisms. Republicans obstruct any meaningful reform. Democrats at least try to get something done; you can’t blame them for resorting to incrementalism when Republicans alone have made that the only feasible option.

Incrementalism? What is the increment? Zero is not an increment of one. 

2 hours ago, safe sex said:

Even if a bill is underwhelming and toothless, it's important to get something passed, to show the people that it can be done. You have to get the tip of the wedge into the issue first, then the rest can follow. Earlier, I referenced the 1957 Civil Rights bill that LBJ navigated through the Senate (and similar conservative opposition). Yes, it sucked that that bill was ultimately a wet fart, but without it, the 1964 Civil Rights bill may not have been possible (at least in its passing form at the time). 

Do something

Agreed. So why keep going back to the well on the singular thing that can't be done and likely wouldn't do much if it could, i.e. reinstating the 1994 assault weapons ban?

2 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

They don’t have private despair in other countries?

It’s the guns. We know what the problem is. It’s not mental illness, it’s not “private despair,” it’s not rock music or movies or video games or porn. The problem is the guns. More guns means more gun deaths. The numbers show that when we ban assault weapons, the most efficient killers, the number of shooting deaths go down. Why wouldn’t that be the case? And why shouldn’t we expect that to be the case if we banned them again? Make the kids with their private despair go on shooting sprees with weaker weapons and they won’t kill as many people.

We can’t get rid of all the guns. Set aside the fact that we can’t do anything about the problem because the Republicans are just fine with little children getting their brains blown out in school. So the subject is purely academic. But if we got rid of the most powerful and most efficient tools of death then I think it’s perfectly reasonable to assume shooting deaths would decline just like they did before. Stop the sale of assault weapons, offer a voluntary buy-back program, and we’d see positive results.

Right, so let me see if I get you:  it's the guns but we can't get rid of the guns so we'll stop the sale of guns which we can't and while we're at it who really gives a shit about neglected people in pain as long as you stop them from getting a gun, which we can't. Do I have that right? 

1 hour ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

You have no meaningful position here. You decry fetishists (of which you are one), prohibitionists and centrists while you continue to stockpile your toys so you can play cowboys and Indians. 

How about you fuck off?

I was responding to Anastasis here, but consider the below my reply. This is what incremental positive change would look like, and it's a total nonstarter, for Democrats as much as Republicans. 
Sorry about your Jimmies. 
 

On 3/30/2023 at 11:25 AM, Bozo_Casanova said:

Here's the thing - the gun issue is dominated by partisans of two competing factions
1) Gun grabbers, who understand very little about guns, are often motivated by trauma, and advocate for a highly restrictive  and punitive national gun regime, and

2) Gun obsessives, who have a fetishistic relationship with guns, are often motivated by insecurity or anger, and advocate for a radically permissive national gun regime. 

Both of these factions are deeply tribal, ideologically radical, easily gulled, and usefully idiotic base voters for their respective political party to the exclusion of all other inputs. That's why, absurdly, discussion of gun policy is shouted down on the gun hobby thread. 

Obviously there are other camps and neither faction represents any kind of plurality, but those are the dominant groups in the discourse. As such, policy positions on the issue exist on a continuum of unhealthy, shrill irrationality, and any point in the "middle," as it were, will be not only highly contested but will be as silly and irrational as either end, and no "group" will  ever be able to shout down the moonbats. 
 

So the reason why I'm mocking your common ground bullshit is that I've opted out of this dynamic.  I'm not interested in advocating common ground between these factions. I'm interested in things that they would and have joined forces to oppose, because they are in the business of trauma and conflict, not progress and resolution. If you choose to caucus with moonbats, fine. But considering that your efforts to find "common ground" will achieve jack shit, I can achieve jack shit by advocating things that are outside of spectrum and get the benefit of antagonizing two factions that I find equally sad and repulsive. At least that way I'll be amused.

What I want at the national level:

1. 7-day waiting period on all retail gun purchases
2. Removal of NFA restrictions on SBRs, suppressors and braces
3. ATF eForm 4 & 5 processing modernization with a mandate for completion in 30 days or less.
4. NFA restriction of binary triggers equivalent to those on fully automatic weapons
5. Requirements for states to have locally appropriate red flag laws consistent with federal law
6. Most other matters left to states

What I want in Texas:

1. Minimum age or 21 to purchase a semi-automatic firearm
2. Permissibility of open carry subject to local law in homerule cities (i.e. population >5000)
3. A strong red flag law

I'll never get these, but at least the people in those factions who read them or hear me say them will have their jimmies rustled. 

Edited April 11, 2023 by Bozo_Casanova

[956 Worldwide 34313]

2 minutes ago, FirstTimeCaller said:

So much to unpack there.

- "Hale tried to run Allison — who was driving a Nissan Murano with two passengers — off Highway 1 near Calahan with his Dodge Ram pickup truck, which had four passengers, police said."

- "Both drivers had concealed carry gun permits and no prior criminal records."

- "The suspect threw “a stone or other hard substance” – actually a water bottle — at Allison’s SUV, “which would produce the death or great bodily harm,” officials reportedly said.

Allison “reasonably believe[d] that using or threatening to use deadly force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm,” according to the documents.

Criminal defense attorney Janet Johnson told the news outlet: “Some people would say well water bottles shouldn’t be more aggravated than a gun but under the case law that the state cited a water bottle is considered a deadly missile.”

For me, I couldn’t get beyond how the one dad realized his daughter was shot and he sped up to go shoot the other guy. I can’t step into that mentality at all. I don’t understand how you have time for anything but your kid, this isn’t a home invasion, you can just let him drive off. 

[BrickHorn 18176]

1 minute ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Right, so let me see if I get you:  it's the guns but we can't get rid of the guns so we'll stop the sale of guns which we can't and while we're at it who really gives a shit about neglected people in pain as long as you stop them from getting a gun, which we can't. Do I have that right?

[BrickHorn 18176]

2 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

For me, I couldn’t get beyond how the one dad realized his daughter was shot and he sped up to go shoot the other guy. I can’t step into that mentality at all.

That’s because you’re not a Good Guy With a GunTM

[Pam Cummings 9553]

3 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

For me, I couldn’t get beyond how the one dad realized his daughter was shot and he sped up to go shoot the other guy. I can’t step into that mentality at all. I don’t understand how you have time for anything but your kid, this isn’t a home invasion, you can just let him drive off. 

It's just further proof that this gun nonsense is about ego and narcissism and has nothing to do with safety or doing the right thing.

[Bozo_Casanova 26232]

1 minute ago, BrickHorn said:

What part do I have wrong?  I laid out a slate of reform I'd like to see in the post above.
Would you like to restate your POV, as simply as possible? 

[Pam Cummings 9553]

3 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

What part do I have wrong?  I laid out a slate of reform I'd like to see in the post above.
Would you like to restate your POV, as simply as possible? 

I'm done arguing with gun nuts. Yall do not ever consider anyone else's position and just completely ignore anyone who has any real point. I think it's about time that people in favor of gun control completely ignore your side and do as we please. Pass whatever legislation it takes, i really don't give a shit how you feel about it. You've ignored us for long enough and now you can have your turn of not getting your way.

Edited April 11, 2023 by Pam Cummings

[Hornius Emeritus 12403]

2 hours ago, RomaVicta said:

This is what we're dealing with. This person seems to assume that, just as he would, we will all defend the acts of any Dem. Further, any Dem wanting gun control is now made a hypocrite because a Dem perpetrated the slaughter. They project partisan cohesion that is the very essence of how they define themselves.

"No surprise"? Really? I suppose it was no surprise that a troubled transexual broke the long streak of hetero men responsible for so many mass shooting deaths.

It's full blown Aggy. There is no coming back from that. I hate the thought that Aggies may actually become more accurate representations of my state than non-Aggies. I never saw it coming.

 

 

 

Well if TTRP on Twitter says it what more proof do you need?

[Hornius Emeritus 12403]

3 minutes ago, Pam Cummings said:

I'm done arguing with gun nuts. Yall do not ever consider anyone else's position and just completely ignore anyone who has any real point. I think it's about time that people in favor of gun control completely ignore your side and do as we please. Pass whatever legislation it takes, i really don't give a shit how you feel about it. You've ignored us for long enough and now you can have your turn of not getting your way.

Completely ignoring the other side is a sure way to accomplish nothing.

[Pam Cummings 9553]

2 minutes ago, Hornius Emeritus said:

Completely ignoring the other side is a sure way to accomplish nothing.

They accomplish their goals by ignoring the other side, i say lets give it a try. 

 

And yes, i consider their bad faith engagement where they pretend to listen and then completely go on about their business to not only be insulting, but to be willfully ignoring people like me.

Edited April 11, 2023 by Pam Cummings

[Guest]

Seems to be the latest talking point from Republicans who are soft on mass shootings.
 

Why the hell do we make schools gun-free zones?!!!1! It makes zero sense.

Edited April 11, 2023 by FirstTimeCaller

[Bozo_Casanova 26232]

10 minutes ago, Pam Cummings said:

I'm done arguing with gun nuts. Yall do not ever consider anyone else's position and just completely ignore anyone who has any real point. I think it's about time that people in favor of gun control completely ignore your side and do as we please. Pass whatever legislation it takes, i really don't give a shit how you feel about it. You've ignored us for long enough and now you can have your turn of not getting your way.

LOL, except if you have a glance at the bottom of #2520 above where I listed out a slate of things that both
a) could actually pass, and
b) would actually do some good

And then you complained about being "ignored" after saying "Pass whatever legislation it takes i really don't give a shit how you feel about it." My sweet summer child. Your faction can't pass anything of any consequence here and has institutionalized the process of losing. Wouldn't you rather do something to stop the killing? I would. 

That is my entire point on this thread -  I'm not on "their side" but I'm not on your side either. Both of you are on the side of the problem. You should get on the side of solutions. 

Edited April 11, 2023 by Bozo_Casanova

[Pam Cummings 9553]

6 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

LOL, except if you have a glance at the bottom of #2520 above where I listed out a slate of things that both
a) could actually pass, and
b) would actually do some good

"Pass whatever legislation it takes?" My sweet summer child. Your faction can't pass anything of any consequence here and has institutionalized the process of losing. Wouldn't you rather do something to stop the killing? I would. 

That is my entire point on this thread -  I'm not on "their side" but I'm not on your side. Both of you are on the side of the problem. You should get on the side of solutions. 

It's pretty hard to pass anything meaningful when we have elected representatives that are paid by the gun lobby to obstruct literally anything that even would remotely make it more difficult or add any hurdles to buying more guns, because that means less money in their pocket. These are not well-meaning people. They are bad actors. They are to be ignored.

Edited April 11, 2023 by Pam Cummings

[BrickHorn 18176]

13 minutes ago, FirstTimeCaller said:

Seems to be the latest talking point from Republicans who are soft on mass shootings.
 

Why the hell do we make schools gun-free zones?!!!1! It makes zero sense.

And that’s why Rep. Massie allows open carry at his campaign events, fund-raisers, and town halls. Right? 

[Bozo_Casanova 26232]

8 minutes ago, Pam Cummings said:

It's pretty hard to pass anything meaningful when we have elected representatives that are paid by the gun lobby to obstruct literally anything that even would remotely make it more difficult or add any hurdles to buying more guns, because that means less money in their pocket. These are not well-meaning people. They are bad actors. They are to be ignored.

Which is why there are a bunch of non-lethal sweeteners for gun owners in there to make it politically difficult for GOP reps who say no. But you realize that Democrats who suggest that kind of approach get raked over the coals by activists of their own party, right? how is that good faith? As close as it ended up being, it's very possible that a pragmatic approach to the issue cost Sanders the nomination in 2016. 

Edited April 11, 2023 by Bozo_Casanova

[YGIFS 19449]

Gun-filled banks, Massie? That's what you're going with?  Dynamite fucking idea.  What could possibly go wrong, impatient citizenry waiting on line for trivial financial transactions, surrounded by unarmed employees and millions of dollars.  Yeah, what could possibly get sideways?  Why stop there, why is the U.S. Capitol a gun-free zone?  You fucking pussy..`

[mdmost 42775]

The horniness for firearms in this country is something I just really will never understand. 

[Hornius Emeritus 12403]

24 minutes ago, Pam Cummings said:

They accomplish their goals by ignoring the other side, i say lets give it a try. 

 

And yes, i consider their bad faith engagement where they pretend to listen and then completely go on about their business to not only be insulting, but to be willfully ignoring people like me.

That's because their goal is to preserve the status quo. Yours is to change it. In order to change it, you will need their support in some way.

[fattyflattie 4636]

36 minutes ago, Pam Cummings said:

I think it's about time that people in favor of gun control completely ignore your side and do as we please. Pass whatever legislation it takes, i really don't give a shit how you feel about it. You've ignored us for long enough and now you can have your turn of not getting your way.

Please please please commit this political suicide. 

[Dnaguy 11740]

50 minutes ago, FirstTimeCaller said:

‘The Sound Of Gunfire Doesn’t Dismiss You, I Do,’ Says Teacher Forcing Class To Sit Back Down In Desks

HOUSTON—Scolding her class for jumping to their feet prematurely, local teacher Jana Stoebel reportedly stated, “The sound of gunfire doesn’t dismiss you, I do,” on Tuesday, forcing the students to sit back down. “Did I say you could get back up?” said the stern 4th-grade instructor, who told her class there would be plenty of time to barricade themselves behind her desk after she finished assigning their fractions unit homework. “I don’t care how many gun shots just rang out, get your butts back in your seats this instant. No, you may not jump out the window. Do you think your middle school teachers are going to tolerate you getting up during a mass shooting like this? No. I’m the authority in this classroom, not the gunman.” At press time, Stoebel had confiscated the shooter’s gun and sent him to the principal’s office for making too much noise in the hallway.

https://www.theonion.com/the-sound-of-gunfire-doesn-t-dismiss-you-i-do-says-1850284188

 

[jimmyjazz 45512]

14 minutes ago, mdmost said:

The horniness for firearms in this country is something I just really will never understand. 

I've been trying to wrap my head around it for a couple of decades, and yet I've failed.

The best explanation I can come up with is that the Republicans are so fearful of white America's impending loss of the racial majority that they will make ANY issue "us VS them" where "them" is the Democrats.  Guns?  The opposite of "control", however mild, is "no control whatsoever".  Abortion?  Can't have it under any circumstance, because "they" want it in some circumstances.  Immigration?  More brown people bad, and the Dems are OK with it.

There is simply no good reason to obsess over an inanimate, dangerous object.  Unless it's a Ferrari 488.

[Bozo_Casanova 26232]

14 minutes ago, Hornius Emeritus said:

That's because their goal is to preserve the status quo. Yours is to change it. In order to change it, you will need their support in some way.

Or maybe preservation of the conflict is their shared goal. 

[Voldemort86 2259]

46 minutes ago, FirstTimeCaller said:

Seems to be the latest talking point from Republicans who are soft on mass shootings.
 

Why the hell do we make schools gun-free zones?!!!1! It makes zero sense.

Conservatives are obsessed with the “ good guy with a gun theory”, but when you break it down, how many of these catastrophic events have ended with a good guy ( civilian and not cop or former cop or undercover cop) actually saving the day?
 

when these events happen, the good guys with a gun freeze up and hide like pussies, otherwise we would hear about them stepping in more often.  It’s not the solution to our problem. It’s just another way for the GOP to make it look like their doing something without actually doing anything at all.

[WhatTheBuck 28700]

1 hour ago, Brian Fantana said:

You are right about one thing, though, which is it may simply be too late. Wealth inequality and other aggravating factors are ramping up significantly and there might be no coming back at this point.

Too late for what? It will never be too late to stop people from buying assault weapons by banning the sale of assault weapons. How many of the recent shootings have we heard about where the shooter purchased the weapon just days or weeks before the attack? Don’t let them buy them. Don’t let their parents but them. Don’t let a friend buy them. Take them off the market. We’ll never stop people from attacking each other but we can take the most deadly weapons out of their hands. That will save lives. 

[Pam Cummings 9553]

31 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Please please please commit this political suicide. 

^this is a person i should give a shit about compromising with. Except every idea for a "compromise" gets immediately shut down. So again i ask, exactly what would that compromise look like? What would change? Not a damn thing. Engaging this type of person gets us nowhere.

 

At a certain point there are simply more people like me than there are of him. We outnumber. Last i checked, in America, majority rules. So shut the fuck up and get with the program. Have better ideas.

Edited April 11, 2023 by Pam Cummings

[WhatTheBuck 28700]

1 hour ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Right, so let me see if I get you:  it's the guns but we can't get rid of the guns so we'll stop the sale of guns which we can't and while we're at it who really gives a shit about neglected people in pain as long as you stop them from getting a gun, which we can't. Do I have that right?

Not at all. 

[Brian Fantana 6654]

16 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Too late for what? It will never be too late to stop people from buying assault weapons by banning the sale of assault weapons. How many of the recent shootings have we heard about where the shooter purchased the weapon just days or weeks before the attack? Don’t let them buy them. Don’t let their parents but them. Don’t let a friend buy them. Take them off the market. We’ll never stop people from attacking each other but we can take the most deadly weapons out of their hands. That will save lives. 

I agree I'm just being a doomer.

[Bozo_Casanova 26232]

1 minute ago, Pam Cummings said:

^this is a person i should give a shit about compromising with. What exactly would that compromise look like? What would change? Not a damn thing. Engaging this type of person gets us nowhere.

To the contrary. I would say that you are only and exclusively engaged with them.
Look how you reacted when I had the temerity to suggest that progress and reform was possible and that a broad consensus exists today across a broad slate of things.  80+% of gun owners (about 1/3 of the adult population) support red flag laws. The majority of gun owners are also fine with expanded background checks, permitting requirements, etc.  Your faction or side has made it impossible for Democrats to work with those people in the same way that the absolutist faction has made it impossible for Republicans to support what the majority wants. There's no upside and no incentive for progress. 

[Chuckie Finster 22583]

39 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Please please please commit this political suicide. 

It's ludicrous that we have all universally accepted that Democrats are the ones that need to solve this very Republican problem.

[Bozo_Casanova 26232]

24 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

but we can take the most deadly weapons out of their hands.

but you can't. You can do many other good things that would save lives, but that one is out of reach. Maybe not forever but for now. 

Edited April 11, 2023 by Bozo_Casanova

[Bozo_Casanova 26232]

6 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

It's ludicrous that we have all universally accepted that Democrats are the ones that need to solve this very Republican problem.

What is ludicrous is the idea that the leading cause of death for Children in the United States is a Republican problem. Republicans are certainly alone in their defense of the status quo, but it's everyone's problem, and Democrats not taking more leadership on it is both a lost opportunity and a goddamn shame.

Edited April 11, 2023 by Bozo_Casanova