[Discussion] Mass Shooting at Uvalde Elementary School

[Sawbonz 27421]

36 minutes ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

but instead chooses to push unworkable solutions that they know don't have a chance. I

Fuck you. First of all, the minority party in Congress can offer up a bill anytime they want. Second of all, what has the Republican Party ever offered up when they were in the majority? Thirdly, name one so-called compromise that 10 Republican senators would sign off on. Lastly, go fuck yourself

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4968]

31 minutes ago, Js1 said:

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

Sorry to quote you again, but I looked up the fate of the Manchin Toomey proposal. They would have had 59 votes if all the Democrats in the Senate had voted for it. Had they backed the Coburn proposal and the sane Republicans who voted for the Manchin Toomey proposal voted the same way, they would have had at least 60 votes, and universal background checks would be the law today. And the Coburn proposal would have required background checks between friends, the Manchin Toomey proposal did not. But Democrats killed it because it did not provide records of the sales. Seems like they could have had it had they been willing to compromise on record keeping.

[Js1 85104]

1 minute ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

Sorry to quote you again, but I looked up the fate of the Manchin Toomey proposal. They would have had 59 votes if all the Democrats in the Senate had voted for it. Had they backed the Coburn proposal and the sane Republicans who voted for the Manchin Toomey proposal voted the same way, they would have had at least 60 votes, and universal background checks would be the law today. And the Coburn proposal would have required background checks between friends, the Manchin Toomey proposal did not. But Democrats killed it because it did not provide records of the sales. Seems like they could have had it had they been willing to compromise on record keeping.

Why does only one side have to compromise? 

[YChang 3430]

33 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”. 

If it's an isolated incident or where history and past-behaviors don't matter? Sure, I agree that's a horrible stance to take. But that's not reality. But the facts are indelible in what modern-day Republican politicians and their supporters have advocated for and passed into policy. So what's your proposal to overcome that in the spirit of meaningful discussions?  

[SHOOTER12 8789]

On 5/25/2022 at 9:21 AM, immamac said:

What? This person spent less than an hour total acquiring all of the weapons and ammunition needed to do this. Do I think it should take longer than 1 hour to do that when you just turned 18 and require at least a gun safety course along with a background check and some type of evaluation? Yeah dude, they don't just toss you the keys to a fucking car and say go mow down kids on the sidewalks. 

I'm about to permaban your ass if you don't stop falsely equivocating preventable gun violence with completely unrelated things. 

Did it really take just an hour? 

I'm terribly unfamiliar with gun laws these days. 

[Celery Man 20883]

The fact that this is a uniquely America problem suggests that there is in fact a solution. The idea that the problem is difficult and can't be solved immediately and therefore we should not attempt to solve the problem is horribly unamerican. Unless you believe in the America that values the cowboy myth over the freedom of grade school kids to have intact faces, in which case it's fucking apple pie.

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4968]

8 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Why does only one side have to compromise? 

The current situation with background checks was the compromise that Republicans made in order to get them to support background checks in the first place.

Edited May 26, 2022 by NotActuallyALonghorn

[SHOOTER12 8789]

On 5/25/2022 at 9:21 AM, immamac said:

What? This person spent less than an hour total acquiring all of the weapons and ammunition needed to do this. Do I think it should take longer than 1 hour to do that when you just turned 18 and require at least a gun safety course along with a background check and some type of evaluation? Yeah dude, they don't just toss you the keys to a fucking car and say go mow down kids on the sidewalks. 

I'm about to permaban your ass if you don't stop falsely equivocating preventable gun violence with completely unrelated things. 

Did it really take just an hour? 

I'm terribly unfamiliar with gun laws these days. 

[statsman 5423]

5 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Why does only one side have to compromise? 

Because sometimes it’s a choice between getting something done and winning an argument?

As to Ychang’s question- I’m very open to some suggestions like treating AR-15s (and like) much like class three weapons were treated (costly annual licenses, extensive background check with many denials) back in the good old days when such a shooting only happened once every decade or two. I’m open to age restrictions. I’m open to lots of ideas. And I would like strict monitoring of enforcement of said laws, and if crazies continue to get guns due to lack of enforcement (looking at you, Sulphur Springs shooter), I want to see other things tried before we ratchet the restrictions higher. (I don’t want to assume the problem and solution are understood without evidence). 

[SHOOTER12 8789]

So a guy that carved up his own face with a knife and murdered his own grandmother 

These threads and the news in general move so fast it's impossible to keep up with. 

He carved up his own face???

[Michael Knight 12891]

Buy every minority in America an AR-15 and every woman 2 guns then you'll see talk for curbing gun sales.

Edited May 26, 2022 by Michael Knight

[Js1 85104]

1 minute ago, SHOOTER12 said:

So a guy that carved up his own face with a knife and murdered his own grandmother 

These threads and the news in general move so fast it's impossible to keep up with. 

He carved up his own face???

Maybe he’s a big fan of Seal

[Dahobbs 17444]

16 minutes ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

Sorry to quote you again, but I looked up the fate of the Manchin Toomey proposal. They would have had 59 votes if all the Democrats in the Senate had voted for it. Had they backed the Coburn proposal and the sane Republicans who voted for the Manchin Toomey proposal voted the same way, they would have had at least 60 votes, and universal background checks would be the law today. And the Coburn proposal would have required background checks between friends, the Manchin Toomey proposal did not. But Democrats killed it because it did not provide records of the sales. Seems like they could have had it had they been willing to compromise on record keeping.

If the "sane republicans" thought the bill would actually pass, they wouldn't have voted for it. You see that time and time again. 

 

 

[SHOOTER12 8789]

1 minute ago, Js1 said:

Maybe he’s a big fan of Seal

So he really did and it's not just BS run wild?

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4968]

That's fair as well.

Edit: was responding to Dahobbs

Edited May 26, 2022 by NotActuallyALonghorn

[statsman 5423]

4 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

If the "sane republicans" thought the bill would actually pass, they wouldn't have voted for it. You see that time and time again. 

 

 

Sounds like you’ve got it all figured out

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11668]

2 hours ago, Captainant said:

Otherwise we're just talking about thoughts and prayers.

 

You'll be happy to know thoughts and prayers has been phased out for horrified and heartbroken.

 

[wildcat09 29237]

1 hour ago, 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?

Or they heard him crash his truck and cops start shooting at him. Jesus christ, man.

[OB3 3608]

 

[Celery Man 20883]

man these cops need to have hammered their last government check. won't happen

[Michael Knight 12891]

1 minute ago, Celery Man said:

man these cops need to have hammered their last government check. won't happen

Cruz is currently fervently lifting them in prayers

[Captainant 27447]

44 minutes ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

Sorry to quote you again, but I looked up the fate of the Manchin Toomey proposal. They would have had 59 votes if all the Democrats in the Senate had voted for it. Had they backed the Coburn proposal and the sane Republicans who voted for the Manchin Toomey proposal voted the same way, they would have had at least 60 votes, and universal background checks would be the law today. And the Coburn proposal would have required background checks between friends, the Manchin Toomey proposal did not. But Democrats killed it because it did not provide records of the sales. Seems like they could have had it had they been willing to compromise on record keeping.

 

40 minutes ago, SHOOTER12 said:

Did it really take just an hour? 

I'm terribly unfamiliar with gun laws these days. 

for context, this is the most recent gun legislation action in Texas:

So yeah, I guess NAL is right to blame them dems for not putting out the fires as fast as the repubs were lighting them. Shoot, if only they hadn't been so feckless they could have prevented those children from being murdered! It's their fault that they keep forcing republicans to pass laws that expand gun rights!

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4968]

14 minutes ago, Captainant said:

 

for context, this is the most recent gun legislation action in Texas:

So yeah, I guess NAL is right to blame them dems for not putting out the fires as fast as the repubs were lighting them. Shoot, if only they hadn't been so feckless they could have prevented those children from being murdered! It's their fault that they keep forcing republicans to pass laws that expand gun rights!

Which of those laws allowed this to happen? 

[MrBig 5284]

1 hour ago, Chopper said:

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.

The NRA sticking with Wayne LaPierre for 30+ years through all of the corruption says a lot about the NRA as an organization regardless of their political affiliation. 

[SHOOTER12 8789]

23 minutes ago, Captainant said:

 

for context, this is the most recent gun legislation action in Texas:

So yeah, I guess NAL is right to blame them dems for not putting out the fires as fast as the repubs were lighting them. Shoot, if only they hadn't been so feckless they could have prevented those children from being murdered! It's their fault that they keep forcing republicans to pass laws that expand gun rights!

Senate bill 20 was a surprise,  I've traveled for 42 years and most of the time I was armed/had a firearm in the room with me. 

[Chopper 17154]

9 minutes ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

Which of those laws allowed this to happen? 

[Paul Wesley 3277]

The DPS officer who they sent out to face the press was evasive and thin-skinned. 

He used the phrase "lot of moving parts" about 10 times.  He had a lot of righteous indignation that anyone would question the law enforcement response ("I'm gonna clear some things up"), but then gave a lot of non-answers, e.g.  "We're looking into that.  I'll get back to you."

In short:  DPS spokesperson is terrible at this job.

 

[The Ace of Aces 5106]

13 minutes ago, Paul Wesley said:

The DPS officer who they sent out to face the press was evasive and thin-skinned. 

He used the phrase "lot of moving parts" about 10 times.  He had a lot of righteous indignation that anyone would question the law enforcement response ("I'm gonna clear some things up"), but then gave a lot of non-answers, e.g.  "We're looking into that.  I'll get back to you."

In short:  DPS spokesperson is terrible at this job.

 

Hard to defend cosplay cowardice. 

[Captainant 27447]

13 minutes ago, Paul Wesley said:

The DPS officer who they sent out to face the press was evasive and thin-skinned. 

He used the phrase "lot of moving parts" about 10 times.  He had a lot of righteous indignation that anyone would question the law enforcement response ("I'm gonna clear some things up"), but then gave a lot of non-answers, e.g.  "We're looking into that.  I'll get back to you."

In short:  DPS spokesperson is terrible at this job.

lotta weasel words for a pig, yeah

[Captainant 27447]

It's too bad that nobody was able to ask officer evasive about the cops handcuffing parents rather than doing literally anything to stop the shooter

Cuffed and arrested for interfering with the cops doing fuck all

[heso 2748]

3 hours ago, Prepuce of Doom said:

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

But because of the two party system we have here we have busses that go east and west, when most of the country wants to go north. 

[Ghost of LL 15483]

58 minutes ago, heso said:

But because of the two party system we have here we have busses that go east and west, when most of the country wants to go north. 

I'm terribly sick of this "oh, the two-party system is to blame" bullshit.  It's just pseudo-intellectual garbage for people who don't want to engage in the substance of an issue.

There is one party that is dead right on this issue and one party that is dead wrong.  And it's just pointless sophistry to say "woe, but for the two-party system, . . . ."  Bullshit.  If you care about preventing children from being murdered in their classrooms, then vote Democratic. 

If you don't, then don't.  

But don't come to me and say "I favor background checks and an assault-weapons ban, but I have to vote Republican because of taxes."  That just tells me that you think a few bucks in your pocket is worth more than a child's life.  That's hardly the political virtue you think it is (speaking here directly to @BabaYaga and not you, Heso).

And don't come to me and say this is the result of some peculiarity in the two-party system.  There are plenty of other countries with two-party systems that (1) have had no trouble imposing serious limitations on guns and (2) have very few mass shootings as a result.

This is the result of something else entirely.

[Js1 85104]

8 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

I'm terribly sick of this "oh, the two-party system is to blame" bullshit.  It's just pseudo-intellectual garbage for people who don't want to engage in the substance of an issue.

There is one party that is dead right on this issue and one party that is dead wrong.  And it's just pointless sophistry to say "woe, but for the two-party system, . . . ."  Bullshit.  If you care about preventing children from being murdered in their classrooms, then vote Democratic. 

If you don't, then don't.  

But don't come to me and say "I favor background checks and an assault-weapons ban, but I have to vote Republican because of taxes."  That just tells me that you think a few bucks in your pocket is worth more than a child's life.  That's hardly the political virtue you think it is (speaking here directly to @BabaYaga and not you, Heso).

And don't come to me and say this is the result of some peculiarity in the two-party system.  There are plenty of other countries with two-party systems that (1) have had no trouble imposing serious limitations on guns and (2) have very few mass shootings as a result.

This is the result of something else entirely.

I would like to frame this post and distribute it to every "both sides are the same/bad" people. 

Edited May 26, 2022 by Js1

[Macanudo 12926]

2 hours ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

Which of those laws allowed this to happen? 

All of them.

[heso 2748]

31 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

I'm terribly sick of this "oh, the two-party system is to blame" bullshit.  It's just pseudo-intellectual garbage for people who don't want to engage in the substance of an issue.

There is one party that is dead right on this issue and one party that is dead wrong.  And it's just pointless sophistry to say "woe, but for the two-party system, . . . ."  Bullshit.  If you care about preventing children from being murdered in their classrooms, then vote Democratic. 

If you don't, then don't.  

But don't come to me and say "I favor background checks and an assault-weapons ban, but I have to vote Republican because of taxes."  That just tells me that you think a few bucks in your pocket is worth more than a child's life.  That's hardly the political virtue you think it is (speaking here directly to @BabaYaga and not you, Heso).

And don't come to me and say this is the result of some peculiarity in the two-party system.  There are plenty of other countries with two-party systems that (1) have had no trouble imposing serious limitations on guns and (2) have very few mass shootings as a result.

This is the result of something else entirely.

That’s all well and good and I’m of the opinion that anyone still voting Republican is just a flat out bad person. And the legality of anyone and everyone to own anything more automatic than a bolt action rifle is just reason 1000. But the fact is that the two party system allows clean segmentation of single issue voters and “bus” voters to be convicted that the other bus is going in the wrong direction. Hardcore “the government should have no say in my life” libertarians and people that want the government to regulate the legality of medical decisions should never be voting in the same direction, but they do here in the good old USA where democracy is just red vs blue kleptocracy. 

In general, I agree with you that this is a failing of the GOP evilly painting gun control as a freedom issue. I don’t think that is entirely separate from the complete inability of a legitimate 3rd party to rein in the ability of both parties to shape everything as us vs them. 

Edited May 26, 2022 by heso

[Ghost of LL 15483]

1 minute ago, heso said:

That’s all well and good and I’m of the opinion that anyone still voting Republican is just a flat out bad person. And the legality of anyone and everyone to own anything more automatic than a bolt action rifle is just reason 1000. But the fact is that the two party system allows clean segmentation of single issue voters and “bus” voters to be convicted that the other bus is going in the wrong direction. Hardcore “the government should have no say in my life” libertarians and people that want the government to regulate the legality of medical decisions should never be voting in the same direction, but here in the good old USA democracy is just red vs blue kleptocracy. 

In general, I agree with you that this is a failing of the GOP evilly painting gun control as a freedom issue. I don’t think that is entirely separate from the complete inability of a legitimate 3rd party to rein in the ability of both parties to shape everything as us vs them. 

But a multi-party system is no better.  It just puts the same type of exercise into a less-formal coalition-building exercise.

In America, if your one issue on which you're going to vote is the environment, then you vote Democratic. 

In Germany, if your one issue is the environment, you vote Green.  But what then happens with your vote?  You get a few members in the Bundestag.  Great--good for you.  But to be in government, you have to join a coalition.  And who are you going to join with?  Right now, the Greens are in coalition with the SPD and the FDP.  The fucking FDP?  That's the fucking equivalent to a Texas Business Republican.  If you're a Green voter, you don't support a lot of what the Government of which your party is a coalition member does (that's even more true of a Jamaica coalition, where the Greens are in coalition with the CDU and FDP, which has happened in state governments).  But you're going to get some environmental shit done, which is what Green voters care about.

All the American two-party system does is formalize that into pre-formed coalitions.  But fundamentally, neither the process nor the outcome is wildly different from what you get with a multi-party system.

[heso 2748]

3 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

But a multi-party system is no better.  It just puts the same type of exercise into a less-formal coalition-building exercise.

In America, if your one issue on which you're going to vote is the environment, then you vote Democratic. 

In Germany, if your one issue is the environment, you vote Green.  But what then happens with your vote?  You get a few members in the Bundestag.  Great--good for you.  But to be in government, you have to join a coalition.  And who are you going to join with?  Right now, the Greens are in coalition with the SPD and the FDP.  The fucking FDP?  That's the fucking equivalent to a Texas Business Republican.  If you're a Green voter, you don't support a lot of what the Government of which your party is a coalition member does (that's even more true of a Jamaica coalition, where the Greens are in coalition with the CDU and FDP, which has happened in state governments).  But you're going to get some environmental shit done, which is what Green voters care about.

All the American two-party system does is formalize that into pre-formed coalitions.  But fundamentally, neither the process nor the outcome is wildly different from what you get with a multi-party system.

This post confirms that I don’t know enough about how multi-party democracy function to be able to really add much. But it sure feels like if from my perspective, having more choices would curtail some of the blatant partisanship. It also seems that it would make gerrymandering a bit less clear cut, but maybe not. 

[heso 2748]

it just seems like the ability of the GOP to take an absolute insane stance on guns is possible because they know that no matter how ridiculous they are on that they have the anti abortionists and low taxes business owners. It seems a lot easier to take ridiculous hard line stances on things when you know there is no chance you lost your other single issue voters. 

but this is probably well beyond how cloak roomy things should get on this board.

[Sbbruin 21722]

6 hours ago, YChang said:

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

@Brisketexan doesn't do positive.  You definitely must be new around here.

[Ghost of LL 15483]

14 minutes ago, heso said:

This post confirms that I don’t know enough about how multi-party democracy function to be able to really add much. But it sure feels like if from my perspective, having more choices would curtail some of the blatant partisanship. It also seems that it would make gerrymandering a bit less clear cut, but maybe not. 

Gerrymandering is a completely separate issue, and you'll get no argument from me that it is noxious and wholly antithetical to a republican form of government.  But that is separate from a two-party system.  If we had a multi-party system, you better believe that the parties in the coalition government would make sure they drew districts favorable to themselves.

If we had a multi-party system, then conceivably instead of the Republican Party, you'd have the Gun Party (yee-haw).  And the Gun Party would frequently be in government with its coalition partners in the Freedom Party and the No-Abortion Party and the Evil Party.  You'd have the same outcome.  

[Brisketexan 104590]

4 minutes ago, Sbbruin said:

@Brisketexan doesn't do positive.  You definitely must be new around here.

You know, here's the funny thing: when I was a young lawyer, many many years ago, my reputation around the office and the firm was as the happy guy.  I was affable, I liked people, I offered positive energy and optimism.  I literally had a reputation as a good person to be around when you needed a pick-me-up.

But I couldn't absorb the reality of these past several decades and not be completely changed.  I wasn't born a complete pessimist -- I'm just calling the plays as they happen on the field, and when they're plays like "19 elementary students turned into perforated sacks of flesh and shattered bone as sacrifices on the altar of Moloch, our Gun God, as law enforcement not only fails to act but prevents parents from doing all they can to save their kids"......well, there's no way that shit doesn't fundamentally change you.

[Michael Knight 12891]

The problem with our system of government is that it's too cheap to buy. 1 person can scuttle a bill

[Sbbruin 21722]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

You know, here's the funny thing: when I was a young lawyer, many many years ago, my reputation around the office and the firm was as the happy guy.  I was affable, I liked people, I offered positive energy and optimism.  I literally had a reputation as a good person to be around when you needed a pick-me-up.

But I couldn't absorb the reality of these past several decades and not be completely changed.  I wasn't born a complete pessimist -- I'm just calling the plays as they happen on the field, and when they're plays like "19 elementary students turned into perforated sacks of flesh and shattered bone as sacrifices on the altar of Moloch, our Gun God, as law enforcement not only fails to act but prevents parents from doing all they can to save their kids"......well, there's no way that shit doesn't fundamentally change you.

No, believe me, this world leaves little room for optimism.  You have to turn over a lot more rocks to find a glimmer of hope these days.

[Brisketexan 104590]

Just now, Sbbruin said:

No, believe me, this world leaves little room for optimism.  You have to turn over a lot more rocks to find a glimmer of hope these days.

All the rocks I'm turning over are for the purpose of seeing whether they're suitable for throwing at people like Ted Cruz.

Spoiler: all of them are suitable.

[Bevo 13526]

It's probably age as much as anything. There is a reason old men yell at clouds. Personally, I'm still a happy guy, though. I prefer to turn off the news, avoid politics, and do things I enjoy. I see a lot of special needs patients who for the most part are friendly and appreciative. I get at least some fulfillment for helping society. And I try to ignore, the best I can, people who are jackasses.

[YChang 3430]

19 minutes ago, Sbbruin said:

@Brisketexan doesn't do positive.  You definitely must be new around here.

I try to assume positive about everyone, even dick head UCLA fans. Respectively. 😁

[Brisketexan 104590]

6 minutes ago, Bevo said:

It's probably age as much as anything. There is a reason old men yell at clouds. Personally, I'm still a happy guy, though. I prefer to turn off the news, avoid politics, and do things I enjoy. I see a lot of special needs patients who for the most part are friendly and appreciative. I get at least some fulfillment for helping society. And I try to ignore, the best I can, people who are jackasses.

So much of what I do, and have done, is to try to help people.  I've been stupidly naive.  Foolishly ethical.  You think you're doing something good and right.   You think you're making a difference.  Maybe a small one, but a difference.

The fucking truth is, you're not.  You're a fucking drop of water trying to make a difference in an ocean of shit.  You're not.  And maybe that's okay.  What's really demoralizing is layer upon layer upon layer of our leadership -- and our fellow citizens FUCKING CHEERING THEM ON -- who are dedicated to adding continuous rivers of shit to that ocean of shit.  The fucking piling on of cruelty, lies, and pain.

It's hard enough to fight a huge fire with a teacup of water.  But to do so while people are all around you taking flamethrowers to everything that wasn't already burning?  Fuck.  What's the fucking point?

Edited May 26, 2022 by Brisketexan

[Helobious 9480]

 

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11668]

31 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

You know, here's the funny thing: when I was a young lawyer, many many years ago, my reputation around the office and the firm was as the happy guy.  I was affable, I liked people, I offered positive energy and optimism.  I literally had a reputation as a good person to be around when you needed a pick-me-up.

 

[Brisketexan 104590]

2 minutes ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

 

Close.

I started out like this:

Now, I'm a lot more like this: