[Discussion] Mass Shooting at Uvalde Elementary School

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12,301]

8 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

I don't want them defunded.  I want them court martialed.  And if they are convicted of showing cowardice in the face of the enemy, I want them lined up against a wall and fucking shot.

you'll get a nice long taxpayer funded paid vacation and like it, sir. 

[BabaYaga 15,290]

1 hour ago, statsman said:

BabaYaga tried to start a discussion in the middle ground, at a place of agreement. This is a pretty inflammatory response- that he is not even allowed to have that discussion until he comes to your side, right fucking now. Or you’re not listening. Does this response apply to all Republicans?
 

Does this discussion style work for you at work and at home?

It's par for the course around here

[Brisketexan 105,093]

4 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

It's par for the course around here

Yes or no -- do you consistently vote for Greg Abbott and Dan Patrick, who 100% promise and ensure that no meaningful gun safety/control measures ever see the light of day?

Actions.  They speak louder than words.  That's not a "par for the course around here."  It's a human truth and has been since we reached sentience. 

Edited May 26, 2022 by Brisketexan

[Js1 85,302]

8 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

It's par for the course around here

Deflect! Deflect! Deflect! 

Chill out Lynda Carter 

[YChang 3,443]

Baba... isn't there a disconnect though? Even if you support these new policy changes the assumption here is that the candidates you typically voted for would never go for that. Don't you think that's kind of a problem? 

[Brisketexan 105,093]

3 minutes ago, YChang said:

Baba... isn't there a disconnect though? Even if you support these new policy changes the assumption here is that the candidates you typically voted for would never go for that. Don't you think that's kind of a problem? 

You must be new around here.

[YChang 3,443]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

You must be new around here.

I'm sorry... I guess I try to assume positive way too much then. Personality trait and all that. 

[aggie08 21,495]

15 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

It's par for the course around here

Unbelievable, dude. Just ignore the incredibly obvious disconnect whenever it suits you. 

[Homercles 10,205]

1 hour ago, Js1 said:

I don't get why this is so hard.  Why defend your voting history with "But I PERSONALLY support those things!!!" if you don't and won't vote for anyone who would even consider those things? 

"I'm personally pro-choice" - votes republican
"I support common sense gun reform" - votes republican
"I support gay marriage" - votes republican
"We have too much money in politics" - votes republican
"I do support a stronger social safety net if I have to pay a little bit more in taxes" - votes republican

When someone shows you who they are, believe them 

[hobbes2702 13,031]

1 hour ago, statsman said:

Do you support a political party leader with a son who lied on a federal form in order to illegally purchase a firearm? And whose status protects that same son from prosecution? If you do, does that mean your opinions are invalid?

Is this a real post? Like you spent the time to think about this, write it, and hit send? Never once did you think “this is possibly the dumbest shit anyone will has said on surly in the last 48 hours, maybe I shouldn’t post that”.

[Brisketexan 105,093]

Just now, hobbes2702 said:

Is this a real post? Like you spent the time to think about this, write it, and hit send? Never once did you think “this is possibly the dumbest shit anyone will has said on surly in the last 48 hours, maybe I shouldn’t post that”.

To be fair, I'm pretty sure that there are some posts on IPIHB discussing some of the sexiest women on the planet and somebody has commented something like "earlobes are uneven, what a hag."  So, you'll always have stuff like that as your rock-bottom. But this could be the SECOND dumbest shit, so there's that.

[ohchaucer 1,443]

Does this response apply to all Republicans?

I don’t want to wade any deeper than we already have but just thought I might touch on this here little question…. The answer is emphatically and unequivocally abso-fucking-lutely yes. Yes it does.

[Ghost of LL 15,531]

Just now, YChang said:

Baba... isn't there a disconnect though? Even if you support these new policy changes the assumption here is that the candidates you typically voted for would never go for that. Don't you think that's kind of a problem? 

I don't know that it's a disconnect so much as an indication that he doesn't really care.

I have plenty of policy positions that I favor, but I routinely vote for candidates who don't share those positions.  I favor complete decriminalization of all drugs.  My congressman doesn't.  Does that mean that I'm going to vote against him?  Hell no, because it's just not that important to me.  And I agree with his policy positions on most other things.

What @BabaYaga is telling you is that children being murdered in their classrooms isn't important enough to him to change his voting preference away from people who he knows are committed to making sure it continues.

[aggie08 21,495]

12 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

I don't know that it's a disconnect so much as an indication that he doesn't really care.

I have plenty of policy positions that I favor, but I routinely vote for candidates who don't share those positions.  I favor complete decriminalization of all drugs.  My congressman doesn't.  Does that mean that I'm going to vote against him?  Hell no, because it's just not that important to me.  And I agree with his policy positions on most other things.

What @BabaYaga is telling you is that children being murdered in their classrooms isn't important enough to him to change his voting preference away from people who he knows are committed to making sure it continues.

And we have a winner.

[Foosters 17,849]

 

Hmm yes, so curious that logic and reason won't prevail with a poster who's posted links to actual neo-nazi websites.

[mdmost 43,001]

This is why nothing will change. Anytime a tough question is asked, the force field goes up. The deflection starts. This is one of the senators of our state. Instead of answering the question, he deflects. He attacks. He does this because he knows he can't defend the position that's bought and paid for by the NRA and gun lobby. Or he simply doesn't care. He's only there because he's expected to be. Why does an 18 year old need to have two AR-15s? Why do we allow that? 

 

 

[Brisketexan 105,093]

2 minutes ago, mdmost said:

This is why nothing will change. Anytime a tough question is asked, the force field goes up. The deflection starts. This is one of the senators of our state. Instead of answering the question, he deflects. He attacks. He does this because he knows he can't defend the position that's bought and paid for by the NRA and gun lobby. Or he simply doesn't care. He's only there because he's expected to be. Why does an 18 year old need to have two AR-15s? Why do we allow that? 

 

 

If I were to sit down and write one of my contemplated books, "The most gutless, pussy-ass cowards in history," it'd be hard not to devote Chapter 1 to Ted.

[Sbbruin 21,839]

4 minutes ago, mdmost said:

This is why nothing will change. Anytime a tough question is asked, the force field goes up. The deflection starts. This is one of the senators of our state. Instead of answering the question, he deflects. He attacks. He does this because he knows he can't defend the position that's bought and paid for by the NRA and gun lobby. Or he simply doesn't care. He's only there because he's expected to be. Why does an 18 year old need to have two AR-15s? Why do we allow that? 

 

 

This encapsulates the entire issue in a nutshell.  There's no real defense for the position that assault rifles can be purchased as easily as a quart of milk.  And he knows it.  But he can't, and won't, admit it.

[Sbbruin 21,839]

Just now, Kel Varnsen said:

Why can't someone shoot Ted Cruz? (hypothetically of course)

[aggie08 21,495]

1 hour ago, Bevo said:

Is anyone on this thread discussing the incident or is this just the politics and bashing thread?

The Cloak Room is for discussing political opinions. This is a political fact. Yes or no: one American political party takes great pride in stonewalling any and all attempts at enhanced gun regulations? Do they often go the other way and make acquiring guns even easier? Am I making this up? Is this my opinion?

So, if keeping legal guns out of the hands of a kid celebrating his 18th birthday is truly important to you--you even have great ideas for doing so!--but you continue to vote 100% for candidates who would never entertain such a thing in a million lifetimes...then it's pretty damn fair to say that you don't care that much, and you don't get to hide behind "my opinions on this differ from those of my chosen party."

If I made limiting abortions my mission, but voted straight ticket for the other party, that would be pretty hollow, no?

 

[twosheds 374]

You named your boat Abilify…

That’s at least better than Tadalafil?

[Captainant 27,647]

13 minutes ago, mdmost said:

This is why nothing will change. Anytime a tough question is asked, the force field goes up. The deflection starts. This is one of the senators of our state. Instead of answering the question, he deflects. He attacks. He does this because he knows he can't defend the position that's bought and paid for by the NRA and gun lobby. Or he simply doesn't care. He's only there because he's expected to be. Why does an 18 year old need to have two AR-15s? Why do we allow that? 

 

 

This is so frustratingly emblematic of discourse generally AND here in the daily texan. Whenever a current event happens that was made possible by overtly political decisions, half of the people check out and yell "POLITICS!!!" if they don't like where the discussion goes. We can't actually talk about the entire issue if we don't talk about all of the factors and enable and instigate the problem.

Otherwise we're just talking about thoughts and prayers.

Interestingly, the [discussion] thread here has much more traffic than the CR thread and is talking about politics just as much. And yet the site hasn't burned down and shit has remained relatively manageable in the thread.

Idk, maybe we should actually confront and talk about the ugliness in life rather than sweep it under the rug and hope and pray?

[Prepuce of Doom 21,061]

50 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

I don't know that it's a disconnect so much as an indication that he doesn't really care.

I have plenty of policy positions that I favor, but I routinely vote for candidates who don't share those positions.  I favor complete decriminalization of all drugs.  My congressman doesn't.  Does that mean that I'm going to vote against him?  Hell no, because it's just not that important to me.  And I agree with his policy positions on most other things.

What @BabaYaga is telling you is that children being murdered in their classrooms isn't important enough to him to change his voting preference away from people who he knows are committed to making sure it continues.

Voting is like taking the bus - you go with what gets you closest to your destination, even if it's not front door service. 

[MNLonghornFUKM 8,817]

I don’t understand how someone is able to capture Ramos running into the school via phone video. I find it hard to believe they’d be already recording something and just so happened to catch Ramos in the act .

Was there a lock down of the area because of Ramos shooting his grandma and alerts sent out on phones? Anyone in LE who knew where he was at, running around in broad daylight with a rifle should’ve been able to plug him.

What an absolute tragedy that you probably would never be able to script.

[Celery Man 20,934]

you don't really need all that much imagination to come up with the script

[sidis 9,825]

15 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

This is a political fact. Yes or no: one American political party takes great pride in stonewalling any and all attempts at enhanced gun regulations? Do they often go the other way and make acquiring guns even easier? Am I making this up? Is this my opinion?

no license or training needed! 

 

[MrBig 5,394]

21 to buy booze and cigarettes but 18 to buy an assault rifle. 

[Sawbonz 27,545]

 

2 hours ago, statsman said:

Do you support a political party leader with a son who lied on a federal form in order to illegally purchase a firearm? And whose status protects that same son from prosecution? If you do, does that mean your opinions are invalid?

Don’t take this the wrong way, but go fuck yourself

[softlynow 1,814]

 

8 minutes ago, MNLonghornFUKM said:

I don’t understand how someone is able to capture Ramos running into the school via phone video. I find it hard to believe they’d be already recording something and just so happened to catch Ramos in the act .

Was there a lock down of the area because of Ramos shooting his grandma and alerts sent out on phones? Anyone in LE who knew where he was at, running around in broad daylight with a rifle should’ve been able to plug him.

What an absolute tragedy that you probably would never be able to script.

 

7 minutes ago, Celery Man said:

you don't really need all that much imagination to come up with the script

Yep. If you need new material you just have to wait for school to resume after the summer. Another sequel is in the works right now.

[Sawbonz 27,545]

1 hour ago, BabaYaga said:

It's par for the course around here

 

3 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

 

Don’t take this the wrong way, but go fuck yourself

 

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12,301]

34 minutes ago, MNLonghornFUKM said:

What an absolute tragedy that you probably would never be able to script.

dude. what?

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12,301]

1 hour ago, BabaYaga said:

It's par for the course around here

you just going to let folks drag their nuts across your face like that? defend yourself, man.

[Dahobbs 17,529]

36 minutes ago, MNLonghornFUKM said:

I don’t understand how someone is able to capture Ramos running into the school via phone video. I find it hard to believe they’d be already recording something and just so happened to catch Ramos in the act .

Was there a lock down of the area because of Ramos shooting his grandma and alerts sent out on phones? Anyone in LE who knew where he was at, running around in broad daylight with a rifle should’ve been able to plug him.

What an absolute tragedy that you probably would never be able to script.

What on earth does this mean? We've seen the exact same tragedy play out many times. It is paint by numbers at this point. 

[27-25 2,047]

3 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

And the filibuster isn’t even an actual filibuster. Today a senator only has to anonymously declare they’re “filibustering” and the senate processes halt. When you see a senator performing the historic filibuster actions, like Cruz reading Dr. Seuss books, that’s only for show. It’s unnecessary.

Is the filibuster actually anonymous?  If true, fuck that shit.  Make them own it.

I do see the advantage of the fake filibuster in the sense that other business in the Senate can move forward.  However, in this current political climate that's somewhat questionable anyway.  If we won't get rid of the filibuster then maybe we should return to its original form.  Make the fuckers own it and parade them in front of the nation showing them gumming up the works.  And for what?

Edited May 26, 2022 by 27-25

[hobbes2702 13,031]

38 minutes ago, MNLonghornFUKM said:

I don’t understand how someone is able to capture Ramos running into the school via phone video. I find it hard to believe they’d be already recording something and just so happened to catch Ramos in the act .

Was there a lock down of the area because of Ramos shooting his grandma and alerts sent out on phones? Anyone in LE who knew where he was at, running around in broad daylight with a rifle should’ve been able to plug him.

What an absolute tragedy that you probably would never be able to script.

Yea you could never script a mass shooting in the only country in the world where this regularly happens. 

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4,976]

58 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

The Cloak Room is for discussing political opinions. This is a political fact. Yes or no: one American political party takes great pride in stonewalling any and all attempts at enhanced gun regulations? Do they often go the other way and make acquiring guns even easier? Am I making this up? Is this my opinion?

So, if keeping legal guns out of the hands of a kid celebrating his 18th birthday is truly important to you--you even have great ideas for doing so!--but you continue to vote 100% for candidates who would never entertain such a thing in a million lifetimes...then it's pretty damn fair to say that you don't care that much, and you don't get to hide behind "my opinions on this differ from those of my chosen party."

If I made limiting abortions my mission, but voted straight ticket for the other party, that would be pretty hollow, no?

 

It is also a fact that one political party has had chances to pass gun control measures, but instead chooses to push unworkable solutions that they know don't have a chance. I wonder why they would refuse to find workable compromises that still accomplish their goals on a wedge issue that they campaign on?

[Neonmoon 38,129]

It takes literally 5 seconds to pull out your iphone and start filming something. Most of the world now is so self-indulgent, they're already filming 24/7 so they can post to whatever look-at-me social media app is popular. 

So no, it's not hard to believe someone would hear a noise, pull out their phone and start filming. There are literally thousands of videos of horrific events being caught of camera, even ones that happen is split seconds. 

The only thing hard to believe is someone dumb enough to believe murdering 19 fucking kids was scripted 

[MNLonghornFUKM 8,817]

What on earth does this mean? We've seen the exact same tragedy play out many times. It is paint by numbers at this point. 

I meant the part about this guys out running around, crossing streets in broad daylight with a rifle after committing a crime


Dude should have never made it from his truck to the school without 40 bullet holes in him, and the fact that somebody recorded him running into the school had to mean there was some sort of lockdown/shelter in place sent out on cell phones, no?

[Js1 85,302]

5 minutes ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

It is also a fact that one political party has had chances to pass gun control measures, but instead chooses to push unworkable solutions that they know don't have a chance. I wonder why they would refuse to find workable compromises that still accomplish their goals on a wedge issue that they campaign on?

Noted liberal firebrand Joe Manchin’s bipartisan background check bill - FAILED

[mdmost 43,001]

[statsman 5,457]

2 hours ago, gmr548 said:

Lmao fuck off back to texags. What a pathetic attempt at deflection. Tell me you have no argument without telling me you have no argument.

Actually, you’re right. I don’t have an argument. 
One of the meanest things I say to people I disagree with is, “Sounds like you’ve got it all figured out”, because complex problems rarely have simple and easy solutions. And the problem of mentally disturbed people in America getting dangerous weapons and killing lots of people is a complex problem- from San Ysidro to OKC to Columbine to Fort Hood to Sandy Hook to Buffalo to Uvalde, with bunches more mixed in between. 
I don’t have an argument. I don’t know that there is a solution but I have to think we, as a nation, can improve (and our federalist model means we have to do it as a nation if we are to do it at all), but the first step is an honest discussion of what could work or not, what rights we’re willing to surrender or not (no CR: anyone think the Patriot Act was a good trade of civil liberties for security?). I’m pretty sure a bad way to start the discussion is “my political opponents are dishonest partners in discussion and not worthy of engaging”. 

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12,301]

Just now, MNLonghornFUKM said:

I meant the part about this guys out running around, crossing streets in broad daylight with a rifle after committing a crime


Dude should have never made it from his truck to the school without 40 bullet holes in him, and the fact that somebody recorded him running into the school had to mean there was some sort of lockdown/shelter in place sent out on cell phones, no?

there's been some folks trying to tell you and others that the good guy with a gun fantasy you have is just that, complete fantasy. in this case, there were actual trained law enforcement officers with weapons that did not stop this guy from slaughtering a bunch of little kids.

but let's arm Ms. Sally the librarian, I bet she's got what it takes.

[VRHorn 718]

2 hours ago, BabaYaga said:

It's par for the course around here

Reminder that this cat posted a link to a fucking Nazi site.

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12,301]

2 minutes ago, statsman said:

I’m pretty sure a bad way to start the discussion is “my political opponents are dishonest partners in discussion and not worthy of engaging”. 

that battle has already been waged. i got some bad news for you.

[shnsajax 3,591]

Fuck

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4,976]

15 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Noted liberal firebrand Joe Manchin’s bipartisan background check bill - FAILED

Tom Coburn offered up a proposal at the time that was more likely to get the Republican votes needed, but Democrats abandoned it because it didn't keep records of the sales. 

Edited May 26, 2022 by NotActuallyALonghorn

[Chopper 17,230]

22 minutes ago, statsman said:

And the problem of mentally disturbed people in America getting dangerous weapons and killing lots of people is a complex problem- from San Ysidro to OKC to Columbine to Fort Hood to Sandy Hook to Buffalo to Uvalde, with bunches more mixed in between. 
I don’t have an argument.

Maybe you've already acknowledged it but there is no evidence that the USA has more mentally ill people than exist in any other country. Also, just for the record and because it's been blamed in various media statements by certain politicians, other countries have the same video games and music that we have.

Also we should acknowledge that one political party in particular has gone out of its way to cut mental health resources in this country. In fact, 5+ years ago when the most recent president elected by a minority of the vote then took office, cutting mental health benefits to the most vulnerable people in our country was among the very first steps they took.

Edited May 26, 2022 by Chopper
clarity

[irishtexan 11,515]

22 minutes ago, statsman said:

Actually, you’re right. I don’t have an argument. 
One of the meanest things I say to people I disagree with is, “Sounds like you’ve got it all figured out”, because complex problems rarely have simple and easy solutions. And the problem of mentally disturbed people in America getting dangerous weapons and killing lots of people is a complex problem- from San Ysidro to OKC to Columbine to Fort Hood to Sandy Hook to Buffalo to Uvalde, with bunches more mixed in between. 
I don’t have an argument. I don’t know that there is a solution but I have to think we, as a nation, can improve (and our federalist model means we have to do it as a nation if we are to do it at all), but the first step is an honest discussion of what could work or not, what rights we’re willing to surrender or not (no CR: anyone think the Patriot Act was a good trade of civil liberties for security?). I’m pretty sure a bad way to start the discussion is “my political opponents are dishonest partners in discussion and not worthy of engaging”. 

There have been multiple "simple and easy solutions" favored by the vast majority of Americans that would potentially help address the problem introduced in the Senate killed by Republicans financially beholden to the NRA. That's the reason why nothing "could work out or not", because the NRA and their minions in the Senate (mis)interpret the Second Amendment and unfettered immediate access to any and all firearms as a "right we're (not) willing to surrender".  That's the reason. 

[Chopper 17,230]

An accurate summary of the political conversation:

 

[Chopper 17,230]

4 minutes ago, irishtexan said:

There have been multiple "simple and easy solutions" favored by the vast majority of Americans that would potentially help address the problem introduced in the Senate killed by Republicans financially beholden to the NRA. That's the reason why nothing "could work out or not", because the NRA and their minions in the Senate (mis)interpret the Second Amendment and unfettered immediate access to any and all firearms as a "right we're (not) willing to surrender".  That's the reason. 

I wholly agree with your sentiment but the NRA has been financially neutered for the past few years because of their own internal corruption. Their PAC and ad spending are way, way down. Republicans are no longer financially beholden to them; they're just acting like it.