Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

The child that did this was having issues of anger and revenge fantasies, I assume because of what transpired. Then the father brings a gun home and kid sees a way to turn fantasy into reality and hasn't developed a governor in his brain to control the overwhelming impulse to act out his revenge fantasy. So tragedy ensues.

What as a society can we do? We can't police his thoughts but we can try to look for signs of struggling kids and give them the support and care they need. The extra attention to help them. Maybe we can also take all guns out of these troubled teens' homes and make sure parents aren't allowed to buy any while their teens are going through this rough time. Since they are unable or unwilling to spent more time and energy on their troubled children and making school authorities deal with this, then this is the direction we go. We add this to the counseling and other protocols. It is all we can collectively do to stop this. I just don't want to read about dead  gun shot 14 year olds anymore.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
4 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

You accusing someone of deflecting is the chefs kiss of 2021

If I ever use made up statistics, please feel free to point it out. 

Posted
6 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

IMO conservatives generally want people to have less freedoms.  They are the police state movement.  They want to regulate a woman’s body.  War on drugs, cameras in classrooms, restrict access to voting, transgender bans, Muslim bans. And the guns aren’t being used to defend freedom, they’re tools to deny the freedom of others. Just ask any mass shooter victim.

In general the “freedoms” conservatives are most interested in defending are the ones that give people the right to oppress others. 

Now this is not to say liberals are immune from criticism when it come to government overreach on individual rights, but conservatives acting like they’re the freedom party is laughable. 

Agree.  That's why I had "freedoms" in quotes.  They are the highest level of hypocrite.  And just straight up liars in most instances.

Posted
33 minutes ago, burntorangebongos said:

Another kid died? Was it the girl on a respirator that had chest and head injuries? Damn, I think she was only 14. 

Republicans might say she will no longer live under the threat of being exposed to CRT. 

Posted
2 hours ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

quit lying. no one is proposing banning guns. just about anyone with a brain is proposing regulations that keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them. please explain to me why that is wrong.

I’m not sure what in my post was “lying.” I replied to a CR thread against my better judgement after Pancho and Penelope were calling out 2nd Amendment supporters for being silent. Although I did not specify banning guns or who would do what, I don’t believe your second sentence that “no one is proposing banning guns.” However, which regulations would anyone with a brain propose that would have stopped this, assuming the father could legally purchase the pistol that may have a magazine capacity of ten or fewer (not sure of the model)? The shooter is going to jail for life, the father will go to jail as well for failing to to keep it secure. Small 9mm pistols don’t seem like a ripe target to ban as particularly more lethal than any other gun. Registration would not have stopped it. A longer waiting period would not have stopped it unless the shooter was on some crime of passion mental breakdown that just happened to correspond with the day his dad brought home a gun…but if that was the case it could have just as easily happened the day after his dad got the gun following the waiting period. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, Murfdogg21 said:

I’m not sure what in my post was “lying.” I replied to a CR thread against my better judgement after Pancho and Penelope were calling out 2nd Amendment supporters for being silent. Although I did not specify banning guns or who would do what, I don’t believe your second sentence that “no one is proposing banning guns.” However, which regulations would anyone with a brain propose that would have stopped this, assuming the father could legally purchase the pistol that may have a magazine capacity of ten or fewer (not sure of the model)? The shooter is going to jail for life, the father will go to jail as well for failing to to keep it secure. Small 9mm pistols don’t seem like a ripe target to ban as particularly more lethal than any other gun. Registration would not have stopped it. A longer waiting period would not have stopped it unless the shooter was on some crime of passion mental breakdown that just happened to correspond with the day his dad brought home a gun…but if that was the case it could have just as easily happened the day after his dad got the gun following the waiting period. 

If it is shown that the weapon was not properly and reasonably secured, the father should go to jail for a long time, imo. 

Edited by Anastasis
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
25 minutes ago, Murfdogg21 said:

I’m not sure what in my post was “lying.” I replied to a CR thread against my better judgement after Pancho and Penelope were calling out 2nd Amendment supporters for being silent. Although I did not specify banning guns or who would do what, I don’t believe your second sentence that “no one is proposing banning guns.” However, which regulations would anyone with a brain propose that would have stopped this, assuming the father could legally purchase the pistol that may have a magazine capacity of ten or fewer (not sure of the model)? The shooter is going to jail for life, the father will go to jail as well for failing to to keep it secure. Small 9mm pistols don’t seem like a ripe target to ban as particularly more lethal than any other gun. Registration would not have stopped it. A longer waiting period would not have stopped it unless the shooter was on some crime of passion mental breakdown that just happened to correspond with the day his dad brought home a gun…but if that was the case it could have just as easily happened the day after his dad got the gun following the waiting period. 

sorry I wasn't clear, but by "no one" I meant no one in a position of power that has any sway. Obviously Beto and others want to remove certain guns from the streets, but in general very few people are calling for banning guns. And even if they were, it's not more ridiculous than our current hands-off policy. There has to be a reasonable middle ground.

Posted (edited)
28 minutes ago, Murfdogg21 said:

I’m not sure what in my post was “lying.” I replied to a CR thread against my better judgement after Pancho and Penelope were calling out 2nd Amendment supporters for being silent. Although I did not specify banning guns or who would do what, I don’t believe your second sentence that “no one is proposing banning guns.” However, which regulations would anyone with a brain propose that would have stopped this, assuming the father could legally purchase the pistol that may have a magazine capacity of ten or fewer (not sure of the model)? The shooter is going to jail for life, the father will go to jail as well for failing to to keep it secure. Small 9mm pistols don’t seem like a ripe target to ban as particularly more lethal than any other gun. Registration would not have stopped it. A longer waiting period would not have stopped it unless the shooter was on some crime of passion mental breakdown that just happened to correspond with the day his dad brought home a gun…but if that was the case it could have just as easily happened the day after his dad got the gun following the waiting period. 

There needs to be a complete societal overhaul regarding gun culture.  Pretend guns are cigarettes in the 1960s.  It's not something that a single law or regulation can fix, but there ARE changes that could be implemented that would make the current gun fetish feel as foreign as smoking in a restaurant a generation from now.  And these changes don't have to be anything close to BAN ALL GUNS!!11!!

This will never happen as long as gun nuts decide dead kids are less important that pew pew games, though. 

Edited by Chuckie Finster
  • Hook 'Em 9
Posted
3 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

There needs to be a complete societal overhaul regarding gun culture.  Pretend guns are cigarettes in the 1960s.  It's not something that a single law or regulation can fix, but there ARE changes that could be implemented that would make the current gun fetish feel as foreign as smoking in a restaurant a generation from now.  And these changes don't have to be anything close to BAN ALL GUNS!!11!!

This will never happen as long as gun nuts decide dead kids are less important that pew pew games, though. 

for a lot of gun nuts dead brown kids is a bonus.

Posted

We have plenty restrictions on firearms right now that NO ONE complains about. More restrictions would not necessarily infringe on a person’s 2A rights. However, if you think the only solution to our violence problems is more gun regulation, you are sorely mistaken. 

Posted
4 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

We have plenty restrictions on firearms right now that NO ONE complains about. More restrictions would not necessarily infringe on a person’s 2A rights. However, if you think the only solution to our violence problems is more gun regulation, you are sorely mistaken. 

this is basically all I read here:
tried-nothing.gif

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
20 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

this is basically all I read here:
tried-nothing.gif

What I’m saying is you need restrictions PLUS a LOT of other shit if you want to stop reading about dead school kids. 

Posted
25 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

all i know is that the sheriff seems to really have his shit together.

I’ve been listening on and off, but I thought I heard him going on a “if we would just hold criminals accountable for gun crimes we would have less gun crime.” How the fuck did that come up and how is it relevant to a 15 year old shooting up a school?  

Posted
2 minutes ago, TXSG8R said:

I’ve been listening on and off, but I thought I heard him going on a “if we would just hold criminals accountable for gun crimes we would have less gun crime.” How the fuck did that come up and how is it relevant to a 15 year old shooting up a school?  

i wasn't listening. we have rats in the attic and i got a guy inspecting shit right now.

  • Haha 1
Posted
5 hours ago, Murfdogg21 said:

Does this mean Senator Murphy will become pro-life if gun bans are enacted?

 

One side thinks that the government and politicians are inherently bad and one side thinks they are inherently good. This one side feels an absolute necessity to keep arms while the other thinks they are relatively pointless compared to the risk of gun murders. 

1.  Chris Murphy is calling out the hypocrisy of his colleagues.  Let's be clear.  The GQP gives no shits about babies.  They do however care about controlling women, and denying abortion is one way to do that.  It is disgusting.

2.  At this point, there is only one side of things that is bad, and they are represented by Elephants and the color red.  They are bigots, they are hateful, and they give no shits about doing their jobs.  They care about "owning the libs" and grifting.  

Signed, a former members of the Republican party.

Also, the call out was to the Johnny Sacks of Shit of the world who were Kyle Rittenhouse fanboying.  Kudos for you for coming in and posting your opinion, no matter how misguided it was.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
1 hour ago, Biff Tannen said:

Just watched a father from the Parkland shooting and one of the kids (adult now) that was a Columbine on CNN.  That shit is rough.

Crisis actors.

Posted
8 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

We have plenty restrictions on firearms right now that NO ONE complains about. More restrictions would not necessarily infringe on a person’s 2A rights. However, if you think the only solution to our violence problems is more gun regulation, you are sorely mistaken. 

True. Until we learn to value people more than guns, nothing will change.

Posted

The kid's mom:

"Mr. Trump, this is why I voted for you. I see the change that we so desparately need. I see jobs coming back, people having to work for their handouts, money going to who really deserve it. Big Pharma taken down, Monsanto stop poisoning us. Jobs given back to our American workers. I believe YOU are the President who will make these things happen. I have NEVER had this much belief in one person, and you are it."

News flash: he didn't make any of those things happen. And "Monsanto stop poisoning us ..?"  Hilarious. The Trump administration BACKED Monsanto time and time again.

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
19 hours ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

totally justifiable, though, because muh rights!!!!

guns > 14-year-old life

Can we just define shooting as a form of bullet abortion and then get them banned?

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Posted
22 minutes ago, Nivek said:

Can we just define shooting as a form of bullet abortion and then get them banned?

I think a decent argument could be made that Q-Anon is strong evidence in support of post-natal abortion,even after the 40th trimester.

  • Haha 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Nivek said:

Can we just define shooting as a form of bullet abortion and then get them banned?

Or could we define abortion as a form of self defense?

  • Like 2
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, yoladu said:

Or could we define abortion as a form of self defense?

Yeah, they don't really give a shit about self-defense, tho.  There are many better ways to defend your home and property than an AR-15, but they don't make your dick feel bigger.

Edited by TexArcher
Posted
1 minute ago, TexArcher said:

Yeah, they don't really give a shit about self-defense, tho.  There are any better ways to defend your home and property than an AR-15.

Those ways aren’t as cool as using an AR-15. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
13 minutes ago, yoladu said:

Or could we define abortion as a form of self defense?

Serious question---I dunno the science terms.  But there's that thing a woman's body does to fool it's own immune system in the first trimester.  Because otherwise it would attack the fetus and kill it.  So the existing, legacy immune/anti-body institution lowers its guard so as to allow this new entity to grow inside the body and prosper instead of smothering it out back like a rejected foal.  Is there a name for that process?  Surely somebody here knows what I'm describing it because it happens in every single human pregnancy since the dawn of the species.

Posted
16 hours ago, Bullneck said:

From his mom's blog:

 

 

trumpers fighting for their right to send their kid to school to shoot your kids. Thank goodness they're safe from the tyranny of facemasks and vaccines at least.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
50 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

actually, maybe you're right. Better now before open carry rocket launchers and flame throwers become legal.

Wait, they're not? Shit, looks like I need to clear out the toolshed.



×
×
  • Create New...