# High School Shooting in Parkland, Florida leaves 17 Dead



## famu720 (Jun 18, 2016)

What a horrible situation in Broward County, Florida! WTH is this world coming to?


----------



## 751161 (Nov 23, 2012)

No words. It's so sad to hear about yet another School Shooting. Horrible that they can't even feel safe anymore.


----------



## DJ Punk (Sep 1, 2016)

16 dead? I read there were people injured, but not dead. Wow...fuck this country.


----------



## TheConnor (Jan 15, 2018)

What the fuck man, ive been through extremely tough times in High School, never resorted to fucking murder, damn people making guns,video games,whatever is fun look bad. but most of all you just killed a bunch of teenagers, how do you fucking think the parents feel about their dead kid ? fuck.


----------



## RapShepard (Jun 20, 2014)

Never got the shootinng up a school. Hopeful a life of misery and pain awaits the thug that did this.


----------



## Cabanarama (Feb 21, 2009)

Of course, because the Republicans put the needs of the terrorist NRA above that of the American people, not a damn thing will be done to prevent shit like this from happening in the future.


----------



## Chrome (Jan 11, 2012)

Another day in America. :francis

R.I.P. to the victims and condolences to the families.


----------



## Slickback (Jun 17, 2015)

> Reports of shooting incident at school
> 
> • News coverage cuts to that, reddit thread is top page
> 
> ...


Here we go again


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

Very rich, very white neighborhood. Probably one of the richest subarbs of all of Florida. 

The shooter had been threatening to commit a shooting for years and no one took him seriously. His social media was full of it.

https://heavy.com/news/2018/02/nicolas-nick-cruz-photos-pictures-florida-shooting-suspect-arrest/


----------



## Achilles (Feb 27, 2014)

It's a very tragic event. Obviously something needs to change in order to prevent more of this insanity.

On another note, it's good to know that the media vultures are always ready to take advantage of a tragedy.


----------



## Mango13 (Aug 22, 2016)

Plato said:


> It's a very tragic event. Obviously something needs to change in order to prevent more of this insanity.
> 
> On another note, it's good to know that the media vultures are always ready to take advantage of a tragedy.



The media are disgusting parasites, I was reading the Reddit thread and there are a million more examples of this exact thing.


----------



## Achilles (Feb 27, 2014)

Mango13 said:


> The media are disgusting parasites, I was reading the Reddit thread and there are a million more examples of this exact thing.



Yeah, looks at these fucking parasites commenting on that particular post of his: https://twitter.com/TheCaptainAidan/status/963868088683900931


----------



## AlternateDemise (Jul 11, 2015)

Plato said:


> Yeah, looks at these fucking parasites commenting on that particular post of his: https://twitter.com/TheCaptainAidan/status/963868088683900931


"Hello, we're aware that you're inside a school with your life potentially at risk, but can you follow us, give us permission to use this photo, take our exam for a free kool aid gift card, and give us your thoughts on our lord and savior, Froddo Baggins?"


----------



## The Reaper (Jul 23, 2016)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/963919347143110656
The hell, how are they getting there hands on the rifles????? Especially those type of rifles.


----------



## Mango13 (Aug 22, 2016)

The Reaper said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/963919347143110656
> The hell, how are they getting there hands on the rifles????? Especially those type of rifles.


They aren't illegal to own/buy


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

The Reaper said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/963919347143110656
> The hell, how are they getting there hands on the rifles????? Especially those type of rifles.


Florida is one of the easiest states in America to get guns. 

Broward is also a very conservative, white and rich area where getting guns is even easier. I know very violent and threatening people here who have dozens of guns and I knpw several that freely make threats to others. From my perspective it's bad. Even my wife was once threatened with a gun by her fucking roommate. There's a reason why I consider most of Florida trashy. 

This kid had been threatening to shoot people for 3 years and no one noticed or cared. That's what's really fucked up imo. Seriously. Living in conservative white Florida myself I've noticed one thing and that is the white people generally threatening violence against others is taken very non-chalantly. Almost as though they think it isn't actually a valid threat if it comes from one of their own. That's my perspective anyways.


----------



## ka4life1 (Mar 2, 2014)

If ever a referendum on a subject needed to take place,
Its on nationwide gun control laws,
How can politicians keep on ignoring the needs/health and safety of its citizens.

Need more mental health services.
Need more security at schools.
Need fewer guns.

Surely the majority want tighter gun laws now,
Why isn't this being pursued more by our elected officials,
The NRA cant have that much power surely ?

I don't usually like discussing political matters on such a public forum,
But i'm just sick of seeing these tragedies unfold,
Yet no solution is ever bought forward.

I'm just so angry/upset right now,
When will these outdated thoughts and beliefs of owning arms end,
honestly what the fuck is wrong with some people.

sorry for the curse word,
Peace and love guys, 
peace and love.


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

RIP to all affected, horrific when children die in shit like this. Happens far too frequently it seems, and probably will in future until they do something to address the problem.


----------



## Mango13 (Aug 22, 2016)

ka4life1 said:


> But i'm just sick of seeing these tragedies unfold,
> Yet no solution is ever bought forward.



What would be your solution?


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

The Reaper said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/963919347143110656
> The hell, how are they getting there hands on the rifles????? Especially those type of rifles.


Out of someones trunk


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

ka4life1 said:


> If ever a referendum on a subject needed to take place,
> Its on nationwide gun control laws,
> How can politicians keep on ignoring the needs/health and safety of its citizens.
> 
> ...


not enough rhyming imo 

Sounds like another situation where a person with serious mental health issues that many people knew about was not taken seriously or helped and the inevitable occurred. We're not going to ban guns, but there's nothing right now stopping people from helping people like this before they do something destructive. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/963919011338686464oh good


----------



## ka4life1 (Mar 2, 2014)

Mango13 said:


> What would be your solution?


I don't want to bore you with endless reading so i shall try to keep this short.

I have a long term solution,
which wont help today,tomorrow or next week but it will help our children and future generations.

We need to set a date in the future,
where as from that date all guns will be outlawed,
Say 2080.

Then we have a timeline in which we follow such as.

manufacturing of all ammo and equipment to make ammo is banned from 2050.

manufacturing of all guns and explosive devices banned from 2060.

Then hopefully by the time 2080 comes around,
guns/ammo will not only be harder to get hold of,
they will also not be in great condition and the prices of the ammunition will have slowly increased to an amount which is no longer affordable for your common criminal,

thus 'hopefully' eliminating the argument of,
good citizens will be left unarmed and criminals will have all the guns.

then between 2060 and 2080 we can discuss what type of guns we shall allow for hunters and the licensing procedure/background checks/mental health checks, 
which come along with that.

also how much ammo should we allow for a hunter to keep at their home,
if any.

Also we could invent a gun for hunters that is very slow to reload or perhaps have some kind of timer on it,
thus only allowing 2 shots per hour or something,
so that any guns that are still 'legal' wont have the victim count that these fast loading guns create,
where they can now kill dozens of people in a matter of mere minutes.


Its certainly not the greatest solution,
but i do think my solution is very practical from not only a long term standpoint but from an economical one as well,
as it wont put thousands of people who work in the arms trade out of work overnight,
like a blanket ban immediately would.

Also my solution doesn't encroach on people who enjoy guns now,
so by the time this law is finally introduced,
those gun supporting folk who find it acceptable to have such high powered weapons will no longer be alive to have their 'freedoms' taken away per say.


I also think greater education of the history of firearms would play a key role into explaining this decision to younger people,
who are perhaps born around the time of my timeline,
So they grow up understanding why this law was introduced and the events which lead up to it.

Sorry if this is long,
I tried to keep it as short as possible,
but obviously its not an easy subject to discuss without going into detail a little on some of the more unseen circumstances which surround this issue.

Have a good evening.


----------



## Headliner (Jun 24, 2004)

Mental illness lol.

Fucking thug displaying a violent act of terrorism.


----------



## Ratedr4life (Dec 18, 2008)

Can't honestly say I feel anything anymore. My heart is sad for the victims, but my brain is numb to it.

Fix yourself America. What possible reason does anyone need a semi-automatic weapon for? Protection? The people that buy these weapons are the same type of people that buy Hummers, small-dicked fuckheads.


----------



## Dr. Middy (Jan 21, 2015)

I'm like desensitized to this, and that alone just depresses the shit out of me. We had over a dozen murdered in yet another mass shooting, and this time there seemed to be clear hints of something like this from this guy. I don't understand how they could completely ignore this, but people did, and look what we got. What depresses me even more is that I really don't know any good solutions that might work here. Guess the best place to start would be to look into mental health and limit production perhaps? 

My heart goes out to all those broken families and the tragedy they suffered.


----------



## Smarky Mark (Jan 3, 2017)

Ratedr4life said:


> Can't honestly say I feel anything anymore. My heart is sad for the victims, but my brain is numb to it.
> 
> Fix yourself America. What possible reason does anyone need a semi-automatic weapon for? Protection? The people that buy these weapons are the same type of people that buy Hummers, small-dicked fuckheads.


If he had run over 17 people with a truck instead of shooting them, would you still be bashing America?

I don't understand.


----------



## squarebox (Nov 6, 2015)

Why do you need to carry around an AR-15 Rifle?

What is wrong with you people?



Smarky Mark said:


> If he had run over 17 people with a truck instead of shooting them, would you still be bashing America?
> 
> I don't understand.


You never answered his question. Why do you need to run around with Semi Autos in the first place?

Completely retarded if 'protection' is the only excuse.


----------



## Ratedr4life (Dec 18, 2008)

Smarky Mark said:


> If he had run over 17 people with a truck instead of shooting them, would you still be bashing America?
> 
> I don't understand.


He shot and killed 17 people. With a gun that he didn't need to have. Why does anything else even matter?

The main function of a car is to get from Point A to Point B. The main function of a gun to to maim and murder. It's only design purpose and use is to shoot at something, killing it. Whether that's animals or humans.

I can run around killing people with a sharpened pencil, I'm not saying we need to ban pencils. Be smart and stop hiding behind weak arguments. 

If this was happening in my backyard, I'd be bashing Canada and doing everything I could as a citizen to push law makers to serve us better. It's sad you don't care about your fellow citizens.


----------



## Smarky Mark (Jan 3, 2017)

squarebox said:


> Why do you need to carry around an AR-15 Rifle?
> 
> What is wrong with you people who actually support such a thing?
> 
> ...


Because nobody should have the right to tell someone how they can and can't defend themselves against danger?



Ratedr4life said:


> He shot and killed 17 people. With a gun that he didn't need to have. Why does anything else even matter?
> 
> The main function of a car is to get from Point A to Point B. The main function of a gun to to maim and murder. It's only design purpose and use is to shoot at something, killing it. Whether that's animals or humans.
> 
> ...


You mean it's not the instrument that's to blame, but the person that uses it??

You don't say.


----------



## Ratedr4life (Dec 18, 2008)

Smarky Mark said:


> You mean it's not the instrument that's to blame, but the person that uses it??
> 
> You don't say.


It's as if nothing else I said registered in that thing you call a brain. An instrument specifically designed to kill, that serves no other purpose, should not be readily available to people. 

If these types of guns, which the people that wrote the 2nd amendment never could have dreamed into existence, are legal and are readily available, why not make ballistic missile legal for citizens to own.

I'd feel safer if I owned a ballistic missile that I could fire at will.

So, guessing you own a AR-15? Or something like that.


----------



## Smarky Mark (Jan 3, 2017)

Ratedr4life said:


> It's as if nothing else I said registered in that thing you call a brain. *An instrument specifically designed to kill, that serves no other purpose, should not be readily available to people. *
> 
> If these types of guns, which the people that wrote the 2nd amendment never could have dreamed into existence, are legal and are readily available, why not make ballistic missile legal for citizens to own.
> 
> ...


No gun's only purpose is to kill people. Guns also act as a deterrent. They're used in the name of defense. Police officers carry a gun at all times, do they just use them to kill people? 

If people can see that I'm carrying a gun am I more likely or less likely to be the victim of a crime that evening? Do I even have to fire a single bullet?


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

Smarky Mark said:


> Police officers carry a gun at all times, do they just use them to kill people?


Not the best argument to use for gun safety in America tbh. I'm not sure you were thinking when you wrote that one...


----------



## Smarky Mark (Jan 3, 2017)

RavishingRickRules said:


> Not the best argument to use for gun safety in America tbh. I'm not sure you were thinking when you wrote that one...


A law abiding U.S. citizen is statistically more likely to be struck by lightning than killed by a police officer.


----------



## Ratedr4life (Dec 18, 2008)

Smarky Mark said:


> No gun's only purpose is to kill people. Guns also act as a deterrent. They're used in the name of defense. Police officers carry a gun at all times, do they just use them to kill people?
> 
> If people can see that I'm carrying a gun am I more likely or less likely to be the victim of a crime that evening? Do I even have to fire a single bullet?


So get a handgun. There are legitimate reasons to own a gun, self defense being one because America is fucked up where you legitimately have that fear depending on what neighborhood you live in. But there in lies the problem. 

I live in Toronto, yeah there's crime here, there's gang violence and murder and all of that, but I've never once felt the need to own a gun to protect myself, that logic isn't ingrained in my psyche from a young age.

Gun culture drives the fear you're talking about. You're buying right in to what gun manufactures want. They want you to live in fear and buy a gun to protect yourself from your fellow citizens. You're following orders like a good little solider.

Changing American gun culture is huge task, so fine let it be for now. You want to protect yourself, get a handgun, an AR-15 is overkill, no pun intended.


----------



## Smarky Mark (Jan 3, 2017)

Ratedr4life said:


> So get a handgun. There are legitimate reasons to own a gun, self defense being one because America is fucked up where you legitimately have that fear depending on what neighborhood you live in. But there in lies the problem.
> 
> *I live in Toronto, yeah there's crime here, there's gang violence and murder and all of that, but I've never once felt the need to own a gun to protect myself, that logic isn't ingrained in my psyche from a young age.*
> 
> ...


Then I hope one day you won't be in the position where you wished you were carrying one.

The students today weren't as fortunate.


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

Sad.

Unsurprisingly most of these incidents have one thing in common, people knew the shooter had issues and nothing was ever done.

Also the media are vultures, this day and age they only care about the story and don't care if it's fact or fiction.


----------



## Ratedr4life (Dec 18, 2008)

Smarky Mark said:


> Then I hope one day you won't be in the position where you wished you were carrying one.
> 
> The students today weren't as fortunate.


Yes, but creating a society where I'm forced to buy a gun out of fear is also the same society that creates psychopaths like the guy today. Or the guy that's going to commit mass murder in America 6 months from now. That's a vicious circle.

Ever wonder why you don't see mass shootings on this regular basis in any other developed country.


----------



## Hencheman_21 (Apr 11, 2014)

Smarky Mark said:


> Then I hope one day you won't cross paths with a psycho wielding an assault weapon and a desire to use it.
> 
> The students today weren't as fortunate.


There. I fixed it for you.


----------



## Smarky Mark (Jan 3, 2017)

Ratedr4life said:


> Yes, but creating a society where I'm forced to buy a gun out of fear is also the same society that creates psychopaths like the guy today. Or the guy that's going to commit mass murder in America 6 months from now. That's a vicious circle.
> 
> Ever wonder why you don't see mass shootings on this regular basis in any other developed country.


Yea there probably aren't as many sick fucks living in those countries. 

America has a lot of sick fucks.

Believe it or not there was a time when mass shootings weren't the norm. We got along perfectly fine. This is obviously a newer epidemic that's gained prominence over the last 20 years.

And yet you attribute this to 'gun culture', whatever the fuck that means. You want to blame guns. As if these sick fucks wouldn't look for other ways to kill people if guns weren't available.

If there are more people committing mass shootings, it means that there are more sick fucks than there used to be. People need to become better parents and raise better children. This kid was an evil bastard because he had neglectful parents and didn't know what the fuck to do with himself. 

You wanna stop future shootings? Stop raising monsters. Until then let me do whatever the fuck I have to do defend myself against them.



Hencheman_21 said:


> There. I fixed it for you.


Evil people are always going to exist. If he didn't have access to a gun, he'd be mowing down people on the sidewalks with his pickup truck. I'd be minding my own business walking to work and I would be killed in an instant.

But if I ever do find myself standing near a psychopath with a gun, you best believe I hope there's someone nearby who's also got a gun so he can take him out.

You wanna blame it all on the gun.


----------



## DesolationRow (Oct 11, 2009)

When the first majorly expressed sentiment from a whole array of students is, "Everyone predicted it/saw it coming/thought he might do this one day," and we are talking about shooting up a school, murdering seventeen and wounding dozens after pulling the fire alarm of the school to draw out as many helpless people as possible for his shooting, something is profoundly wrong. Several different outlets are reporting that one of the school's math teachers, Jim Gard, who taught the shooter, who is an ex-student, a year ago, told the _Miami Herald_, "We were told last year that he wasn't allowed on campus with a backpack on him. There were problems with him last year threatening students and I guess he was asked to leave campus." 

The shooter is nineteen years old. The prosecution will look to try him as an adult I am sure. A prolonged media circus in the offing.


----------



## DoctorWhosawhatsit (Aug 23, 2016)

Another day, another mass shooting in America, and in a few short days, after countless tweets, facebook messages, and public statements issuing thoughts and prayers, it'll be on to a new, most likely contrived, issue resulting in nothing being addressed, changed, or resolved.


----------



## FITZ (May 8, 2007)

DesolationRow said:


> When the first majorly expressed sentiment from a whole array of students is, "Everyone predicted it/saw it coming/thought he might do this one day," and we are talking about shooting up a school, murdering seventeen and wounding dozens after pulling the fire alarm of the school to draw out as many helpless people as possible for his shooting, something is profoundly wrong. Several different outlets are reporting that one of the school's math teachers, Jim Gard, who taught the shooter, who is an ex-student, a year ago, told the _Miami Herald_, "We were told last year that he wasn't allowed on campus with a backpack on him. There were problems with him last year threatening students and I guess he was asked to leave campus."
> 
> The shooter is nineteen years old. The prosecution will look to try him as an adult I am sure. A prolonged media circus in the offing.


I don't think they have to look to try him as one, I think he's an adult by default. They might even seek the death penalty. I wouldn't be shocked actually if this doesn't go to trial and become a media circus. They offer him life without parole and take the death penalty off the table and he takes it. I wouldn't be surprised at all. 

And we can say that he showed all the signs of someone that was going to this but realistically there are hundreds of thousands of people that show all the signs of doing something like this. A handful actually do it. 

I am curious where he got the gun. I'm seeing 3 scenarios. It was illegally obtained, a background check failed, or it was purchased privately and no background check was required. If it was a private purchase then I could actually see some changes coming from this, like eliminating the loop hole when you buy a gun from someone that isn't a dealer. If he didn't get it that way I wouldn't expect anything to happen.

Realistically though I don't think anything is going to come from this. Even if a new law was passed I don't people would follow it. 

I live in New York. A few years back we passed a law requiring that assault weapons be registered. People are not registering them. 

https://www.timesunion.com/tuplus-opinion/article/State-s-SAFE-Act-needs-to-set-its-sights-on-6754126.php

https://hudsonvalleyone.com/2016/07/07/massive-noncompliance-with-safe-act/

In short summary there are an estimated 1 million weapons that should be registered in New York. After 3 years 44,000 weapons were registered. Meaning people won't do it. I can name 3 family members of mine who refused to register. 

And the overwhelming majority of law enforcement is done at the local level. Lots of fun owners live in rural areas with VERY conservative local governments. Pass whatever law you want, they aren't going to enforce it. 

An assault weapon or even a registry I think would be met with non-compliance. Unless a ban involves hiring thousands and thousands of new federal agents to hit the road and round up the guns the local governments aren't going to do it.


----------



## DesolationRow (Oct 11, 2009)

Excellent point about the very likely possibility of this never going to trial at all, @FITZ, as in the majority of cases.


----------



## Eva MaRIHyse (Jun 20, 2014)

What do you even say at this point?

It’s beyond tragic, it’s pathetic, revolting and vile that someone has done this.

Sadly it’ll just keep happening though. Nothing ever changes, no attempts are ever even made to address the issues. Guns are more important than human life in America.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Fun fact, there have been 18 school shootings in the US this year alone, in the rest of the world there has only been 18 total in 20 years.

And I see the same people in these threads over and over again defending guns and these types of shootings keep happening over and over again.

The def. of insanity..... yeah you know the rest


----------



## DesolationRow (Oct 11, 2009)

FITZ said:


> I am curious where he got the gun. I'm seeing 3 scenarios. It was illegally obtained, a background check failed, or it was purchased privately and no background check was required. If it was a private purchase then I could actually see some changes coming from this, like eliminating the loop hole when you buy a gun from someone that isn't a dealer. If he didn't get it that way I wouldn't expect anything to happen.
> 
> Realistically though I don't think anything is going to come from this. Even if a new law was passed I don't people would follow it.
> 
> ...


Agreed.

On one hand, a fair number of things can be done and have been done in the past and will be done in the future. 

Some popularly held views among gun control advocates require some scrutiny, however, if for no other reason because constructive criticism helps to clarify myriad concerns, which is beneficial to all parties.

The greatest stumbling block is the somewhat obsessive consideration of what are frequently referred to as "assault weapons" or "semiautomatic guns." It's a common error and usually an honest one: the majority of Americans tend to mistake these very firearms for machine guns, machine guns which would be capable of firing multiple rounds of ammunition with the single pull of the trigger. In reality the federal government banned the sale of machine guns to civilians over thirty years ago in 1986. Also, while gun control advocates frequently make mistakes connected to the topic, so too do gun enthusiasts and the National Rifle Association. The NRA has argued that a federal overreach on the gun issue will never "work" (i.e., succeed in reducing the number of guns available to people and particularly criminals) but the federal ban on machine guns has been wildly successful. 

However, as machine guns were outright banned by the federal government, a host of gun manufacturers began to market ordinary rifles as being tremendously powerful and they often made them look at least vaguely like military-style machine guns. The AR-15 is something of a slightly-modified clone of the U.S. military's M-16 complete with smooth matte black finish, excellently useful lightweight materials and a comfortable-to-all-wielders pistol grip. 

Colt's rifles, for instance, are terrifically easy to use, even for beginners. They tend to be highly accurate, do not kick too much and possess an array of possibilities such as modified or customized grips, special sights and variegated tools that make the rifle all the more efficacious. Most of these rifles are in the middle of the pack for power, being at least typically more power than the average handgun but less powerful than many other rifles on the market. This brings us to the term "semiautomatic," which is often bandied about somewhat liberally. The term is at its root a technical one and only speaks to the stylized manner in which rounds themselves are chambered. Whether a weapon is "semiautomatic" or not has nearly no bearing on how that particular gun shoots, or the rapidity by which rounds may be fired. A whole host of handguns worldwide are "semiautomatic" as well. Rifles patterned on U.S. military weapons fire but one round for each individual pulling of the trigger, which makes them scarcely different from the majority of revolvers, hunting rifles or likely 350-400 million guns in the U.S. today. 

Having already noted that the U.S. federal government's banning of selling machine guns has been a major success, it is now time to take one's medicine in the other direction. Any and all efforts to ban "semiautomatic" weapons are probably doomed. 

And this is, chiefly, for very technical reasons.

It is not the weapons but the detachable high-capacity ammunition magazines that exponentially increase these weapons' deadliness, as it were, providing a shooter with the opportunity to fire rounds in a quicker manner. Eight U.S. states have laws making it illegal to sell these magazines, including California and New York (the former where two Islamists utilized such a high-capacity ammunition magazine in San Bernardino two years ago anyway). 

Noting once again for the sake of comprehension: approximately half of the handguns in the U.S. today have detachable high-capacity magazines that may be wedded to the firearm for added degrees of lethal intent. 

It's true that these rifles are often sold with detachable high-capacity ammunition magazines that increase their lethality, enabling a shooter to fire more than a dozen rounds quickly. (Such magazines are illegal to sell in California.) But again, these firearms are not unique in this. About half the handguns in the U.S. also have detachable high-capacity magazines. California was the first state to ban the high-capacity magazines back in 1989 after a shooter used one to murder five Stockton schoolchildren, and the much-touted 1994 federal ban followed, sunsetting a decade later. 

One can see why this remains a frustrating issue--namely due to the fact that the vast, overwhelming majority of the guns in the U.S. are simply ordinary, run-of-the-mill revolvers, "semiautomatic" handguns and rifles, making it almost impossible for legislators to even begin to effectively regulate them without imposing an outright ban on about fifty percent of the handguns endowed with detachable magazines or "semiautomatic" status in the U.S. today, as well as the majority of quotidian hunting rifles, too.

What this leads to is legislators spending most of their political capital on what are fundamentally superficial matters. The ten-year federal ban applied to what were considered all semiautomatic rifles with detachable magazines as well as two or more military-style features. California's law was a bit more restrictive, meaning that even one military-style feature, such as a flash suppressor, was strictly prohibited. 

It's a fruitless enterprise because it's a bit like saying one cannot purchase the cigarettes with the very same amount of nicotine in them as the other cigarettes at the store because these cigarettes have too many user-friendly features that have little to do with the inherent risks in the existence of the cigarette. Gun manufacturers simply removed the military-style accoutrement, and, presto, there is nothing that the legislators can reasonably say about just another hunting rifle. The 2004 study commissioned by the U.S. Justice Department argued, upon gathering a host of findings, that the 1994-2004 "assault weapons" ban did not in any way deter nor decrease either crimes committed with guns or gun-related fatalities. 

Rifles are almost never used in gun crimes. Such cases are genuine outliers. Even with the recent little uptick in mass shootings, as of right now U.S. Justice Department figures exhibit the point that rifles account for only 3.5% of criminal gun deaths. The overwhelming majority of criminal gun deaths are from handguns.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

This is Florida, I can buy a second-hand gun at a Flea Market. No background checks on second hand sales. I don't even have to prove I'm a legal immigrant or a citizen. The laws are not deterrents. People don't care. 

It is that easy. 

People sell guns here on FB garage sale groups, from the trunks of their cars, from within and in their private offices. I know a guy who owns 50 guns and sells guns on the side as a business. I know another guy who runs a small office of 40 people and they do active shooter drills ... because in his office there have been 3 major threats made by ex-employees who were fired. The same guy owns dozens of guns himself and also sells second hand guns to anyone who asks. 

This is gun county. _Especially _the the central florida and panhandle counties. 

Things are not going to change here. From what I've seen, this area IS exactly what the _worst _of gun culture in America truly represents. The "it's only for self-defense" argument is a pile of dog dung for the lunatics I'm surrounded with. If you met some of the assholes I've met, you'll WANT to take away their guns because they are clearly not responsible enough to own them. I'd say that out of 10 gun owners I've met, I've felt safe in the company of only one of them. Every third person has some story about some "responsible gun owner" threatening to pull a gun on them or actually pulling one on them. There's stories of shootings quite literally every day. It is bad. 

You combine drug/meth/trailer trash culture of Florida with lack of gun control and I'm not at all surprised at the number of shootings that happen here despite there being little to no gang activity at least in these areas.


----------



## Hencheman_21 (Apr 11, 2014)

Smarky Mark said:


> Yea there probably aren't as many sick fucks living in those countries.
> 
> America has a lot of sick fucks.
> 
> ...


That is such a WEAK argument. "oh he'd find another way to kill so no use eliminating this one efficient way to do it". Can you imagine politicians saying North Korea or terrorists will kill Americans if that is what they want so no use trying to keep nuclear weapons out of their hands. Also a truck might not have worked in this case. He targeted students at that specific school. So unless he could get them in an area where he could run them over without them being able to run away he would not be able to do as much carnage with a truck.


----------



## Ghost Lantern (Apr 11, 2012)

birthday_massacre said:


> Fun fact, there have been 18 school shootings in the US this year alone, in the rest of the world there has only been 18 total in 20 years.
> 
> And I see the same people in these threads over and over again defending guns and these types of shootings keep happening over and over again.
> 
> The def. of insanity..... yeah you know the rest


and here the old arch enemies agree....

Something should be done. Why anyone needs a semi automatic rifle is beyond me.


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

Still relevant.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

Not sure why the bbc and co perpetually place these stories high on their agenda.


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

Pretty easy to simply blame 'mental illness' and the absolutely ridiculous notion of 'evil' the god botherers enjoy - what use does saying some people are simply 'evil' achieve? Babies aren't born evil.

Most mentally ill people are not violent, and you certainly don't need to be diagnosed mentally ill to be violent - it's a convenient scapegoat. 

If you wanted to get all sociology about it you might even argue in certainly American society that shooting up a school or concert or whatever in this fashion isn't insane at all - while not normal, it's not the deviant act it used to be since it happens all the time. When you have a society so entrenched in violent and gun culture it becomes easier and easier to copycat and entertain the notion of gunning down your contemporaries.

Guns aren't the whole answer and everyone suggesting control knows this - but's a big piece of the puzzle - something, anything, needs to be trialled.


----------



## PrettyLush (Nov 26, 2017)

This is why Scouting programs are important.


----------



## CM Buck (Sep 2, 2012)

Rest in peace to all those needlessly slaughtered and condolences and everything else


----------



## Interceptor88 (May 5, 2010)

Such a tragedy. 

I understand a lot of people are tired of the "must guns be controlled or not" topic, but I am very curious about a particular thing. 

When you chek the homicide rates of every country, you realize most of the countries with 1 or below (USA has 4.7), such as Japan, Spain, Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, etc etc, have gun control, with few exceptions like Switzerland. And you don't listen news about mass shootings in those countries either, with the exceptions of the terrible terrorist strikes we all know...

Considering that, would someone explain to me the whole "gun control is not a solution because people will buy guns anyway in the black market"? Because I'm pretty sure the numbers say otherwise: the numbers tell gun control is, if not THE solution, at the very least part of it. 

Also: I understand the freedom to own weapons is part of USA culture, but don't you think that maybe that's wrong, after all? I understand it must be difficult to realize it when you have been raised with the notions that guns are OK and people need them for protection, etc, but as I said, the numbers of homicides, murders and outright massacres in other countries should made many Americans reflect about it.


----------



## PrettyLush (Nov 26, 2017)

It's a multi-billion industry, that's all there is to it.


----------



## greasykid1 (Dec 22, 2015)

There is really no point in arguing about guns.

Whether people need them, whether people should own them, what type of gun is OK and what type is not, whether background checks would help, whether people get the guns that they use for attacks legally or not ... etc etc

The arguments have been completely played out a thousand times, with absolutely no results or actions by anyone in government or in the gun manufacture industry.

At this point, America, as a whole, has made the decision that a couple of dozen dead children every month or two is a fair price to pay to keep their guns in their homes. They have no interest in discussing the matter.

The Constitution protects the right of every crazy white man to murder as many people as he likes. So long as he uses a gun.
The only response we will ever get from anyone in a position to stop the killing sprees is "Thoughts & Prayers to the victim's families".

God Bless America.


----------



## AlternateDemise (Jul 11, 2015)

Smarky Mark said:


> Because nobody should have the right to tell someone how they can and can't defend themselves against danger?
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Smarky Mark said:


> No gun's only purpose is to kill people. Guns also act as a deterrent. They're used in the name of defense. Police officers carry a gun at all times, do they just use them to kill people?
> 
> If people can see that I'm carrying a gun am I more likely or less likely to be the victim of a crime that evening? Do I even have to fire a single bullet?





Smarky Mark said:


> Then I hope one day you won't be in the position where you wished you were carrying one.
> 
> The students today weren't as fortunate.





Smarky Mark said:


> Yea there probably aren't as many sick fucks living in those countries.
> 
> America has a lot of sick fucks.
> 
> ...


Take your dumbshit arguments somewhere else. This isn't the place for them.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

https://www.buzzfeed.com/briannasac...ng-threat-from?utm_term=.lnXglJXQ4#.vo4bkp1a4



Spoiler: large image


----------



## Mister Abigail (May 22, 2014)

Americans are such an all or nothing people. There’s no levels.


----------



## samizayn (Apr 25, 2011)

I am so sad about this. It's weighing on my heart.


----------



## Laughable Chimp (Sep 1, 2016)

I really don't like that Smarky Mark guy's arguments. Particularly that lightning argument which he brought up in another completely unrelated argument but about shootings as well. Because it really sounds like he is saying that school shootings and cop shootings(for the other argument) aren't a problem because lightning strikes kill more people.


----------



## Smarky Mark (Jan 3, 2017)

Hencheman_21 said:


> That is such a WEAK argument. "oh he'd find another way to kill so no use eliminating this one efficient way to do it". Can you imagine politicians saying North Korea or terrorists will kill Americans if that is what they want so no use trying to keep nuclear weapons out of their hands. Also a truck might not have worked in this case. He targeted students at that specific school. *So unless he could get them in an area where he could run them over without them being able to run away he would not be able to do as much carnage with a truck*.


You mean like when they're all leaving school!?!? 

We want to keep nukes out of N. Korea's hand because they're our enemy and we don't give a fuck about their freedom to pursue defense.

That is not the same as keeping weapons out of the hands of your own citizens.


----------



## Smarky Mark (Jan 3, 2017)

greasykid1 said:


> At this point, America, as a whole, has made the decision that a couple of dozen dead children every month or two is a fair price to pay to keep their guns in their homes. They have no interest in discussing the matter.


What is the alternative? That americans should be denied the right to own a gun?


----------



## Laughable Chimp (Sep 1, 2016)

Smarky Mark said:


> You mean like when they're all leaving school!?!?
> 
> We want to keep nukes out of N. Korea's hand because they're our enemy and we don't give a fuck about their freedom to pursue defense.
> 
> That is not the same as keeping weapons out of the hands of your own citizens.





Smarky Mark said:


> What is the alternative? That americans should be denied the right to own a gun?


Yes?

You make it sound like that's a bad thing.


----------



## Smarky Mark (Jan 3, 2017)

Laughable Chimp said:


> Yes?
> 
> You make it sound like that's a bad thing.


LMAO so who has all the guns? The govt?


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Smarky Mark said:


> What is the alternative? That americans should be denied the right to own a gun?


Certain guns yes.

We have these same arguments every time a shooting happens. Its time something is done about guns in the US.


----------



## Smarky Mark (Jan 3, 2017)

birthday_massacre said:


> Certain guns yes.
> 
> We have these same arguments every time a shooting happens. Its time something is done about guns in the US.


I'm just curious, if the kid had used a handgun... or multiple handguns... what would you say then?

Would you start banning handguns?


----------



## Laughable Chimp (Sep 1, 2016)

Smarky Mark said:


> LMAO so who has all the guns? The govt?


Uh yes?


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Smarky Mark said:


> I'm just curious, if the kid had used a handgun... or multiple handguns... what would you say then?
> 
> Would you start banning handguns?


But he did not use handguns. 

FL should have stricter gun laws anyways they are way too weak. 

There is a reason why the US has more mass shootings than any other country in the world.


----------



## Laughable Chimp (Sep 1, 2016)

TBH, if it is up to me, I'd just ban the damn handguns as well. If you're gonna put the blame on the gun culture, the only way to get rid of said gun culture is to get rid of the guns as well.

But I recognize that might be too far for some.


----------



## Stinger Fan (Jun 21, 2006)

birthday_massacre said:


> Fun fact, there have been 18 school shootings in the US this year alone, in the rest of the world there has only been 18 total in 20 years.
> 
> And I see the same people in these threads over and over again defending guns and these types of shootings keep happening over and over again.
> 
> The def. of insanity..... yeah you know the rest


Here's another fun fact, before this shooting out of 17 attacks, only 3 people were killed. But don't let that get in the way of purposely trying to mislead stats to push an agenda. 





> But that narrative was gleaned from the anti-gun group Everytown for Gun Safety. Here are some facts, in order to separate the wheat from the chaff when it comes to the facts:
> 
> *Twice, someone shot themselves on school grounds*; one incident, on January 3, featured a man shooting himself in a former school’s parking lot; on *January 10 a teen killed himself in an Arizona elementary school bathroom*.
> 
> ...


https://www.dailywire.com/node/27165#

If you're going to cite statistics, at least don't be ignorant about it


----------



## Interceptor88 (May 5, 2010)

Smarky Mark said:


> LMAO so who has all the guns? The govt?


I don't know if you have realized that's how things work in a lot of countries and it works OK.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Stinger Fan said:


> Here's another fun fact, before this shooting out of 17 attacks, only 3 people were killed. But don't let that get in the way of purposely trying to mislead stats to push an agenda.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


A shooting is still a shooting. But sure make excuses.

and you say ONLY 3 were killed FFS
Over 30 were injured but guess that is ok because they didn't die right.


----------



## Stinger Fan (Jun 21, 2006)

birthday_massacre said:


> A shooting is still a shooting. But sure make excuses.


You're deflecting. When people think of "school shooting" they don't think of a child pulling the trigger of a cops gun or a suicide and you know it. Stop trying to push your agenda. Bring up the real facts in each of those instances because they *aren't* all the same as this one. Trying to put them into the same group makes you look ridiculous . 

You fell hard for a false narrative because it suited your agenda.


----------



## Stipe Tapped (Jun 21, 2013)

yeahbaby! said:


> Pretty easy to simply blame 'mental illness' and the absolutely ridiculous notion of 'evil' the god botherers enjoy - what use does saying some people are simply 'evil' achieve? Babies aren't born evil.


Mental illness isn't a scapegoat. It's something that plays a huge factor in a lot of these incidents. You can't just blame the gun laws and suggest that they inevitably lead to well-adjusted people doing things like this. Sure, the laws probably don't help if someone is inclined towards this sort of thing, but the blame doesn't fall solely on the Constitution.

Since when is evil a ridiculous notion? You're conflating evil with religion even though there's a very clear secular interpretation of it. Evil is the creation of suffering for its own sake. It's an undeniable reality that it lays the foundation for many of these senseless massacres.

I'm not a gun guy, and I think that the US probably does need to tighten up its gun laws a bit, but dismissing mental illness as a factor and dismissing the very existence of evil isn't going to help in figuring out what's going on here.


----------



## Laughable Chimp (Sep 1, 2016)

Jordan B Peterson said:


> Mental illness isn't a scapegoat. It's something that plays a huge factor in a lot of these incidents. You can't just blame the gun laws and suggest that they inevitably lead to well-adjusted people doing things like this. Sure, the laws probably don't help if someone is inclined towards this sort of thing, but the blame doesn't fall solely on the Constitution.
> 
> Since when is evil a ridiculous notion? You're conflating evil with religion even though there's a very clear secular interpretation of it. Evil is the creation of suffering for its own sake. It's an undeniable reality that it lays the foundation for many of these senseless massacres.
> 
> I'm not a gun guy, and I think that the US probably does need to tighten up its gun laws a bit, but dismissing mental illness as a factor and dismissing the very existence of evil isn't going to help in figuring out what's going on here.



I would say the creation of suffering from its own sake isn't evil. That's sadism, which is part of evil but not evil itself. A hitman who kills for money for example wouldn't fit under this classification, but most people would consider that evil. 

Back to the point, I don't he is dismissing evil or mental illness. I think he is more annoyed at the people who are simply call this another case of a bad guy doing bad things and implying that nothing should be changed to stop that. Like "Oh, there's nothing we can do about it. Its just another fucked up guy who would've done fucked up shit regardless without guns or not".

Which is just deflecting imo. There's always gonna be evil and fucked up people imo. Doesn't mean we should make it easy for them to do evil and fucked up things.


----------



## Mister Abigail (May 22, 2014)

It’s the ones who argue against ANY discussion of change that boggle my mind. 

Also the ‘BUT CARS!’ brigade.


----------



## 2 Ton 21 (Dec 28, 2011)

I was thinking about the shooting while I was making breakfast and it hit me why nothing changes; people aren't shocked. 

Sure they're sad, angry, depressed, but not shocked. Think about what we see on the news. Witness accounts. Kids huddled in a class room in fear. Kids running to buses to get away. Similar videos from other shootings every time.

So, I thought, if you want some kind of change, either gun control, mental health reform, both, or some other solution... show the crime scene.

Release videos in full detail of the scene before the bodies are moved. Show it on the news. Show classrooms covered in blood, dead kids, the sound of their phones ringing in their pockets as their parents call to see if they're o.k. That's shocking. That is hard to forget and/or ignore. If after Sandy Hook they showed videos of the classrooms filled with dead 6-7 year olds on cable news for a couple of days, I'm guessing legislation would have been passed or action taken.

Now the problem with this is you'll have legislation passed in a rush or actions rushed into, that will turn out to be not so good. 9/11 is a great example of this. We all saw the towers fall repeatedly on the news and there was significant shock and outrage. We passed a shitload of legislation and went to war. We've been dealing with the fallout since.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Stinger Fan said:


> You're deflecting. When people think of "school shooting" they don't think of a child pulling the trigger of a cops gun or a suicide and you know it. Stop trying to push your agenda. Bring up the real facts in each of those instances because they *aren't* all the same as this one. Trying to put them into the same group makes you look ridiculous .
> 
> You fell hard for a false narrative because it suited your agenda.


the only one deflecting here is you but keep downplaying these shootings.

I brought up the real facts. You are the one who looks ridiculous for making excuses lol

I did not fall for anything my stats were 100% correct.

A shooting is when people get shot, they don't have to die. Your logic is well its not really a shooting because no one died but 30 people got shot and injuried.

You really want to stick with that logic?



Jordan B Peterson said:


> Mental illness isn't a scapegoat. It's something that plays a huge factor in a lot of these incidents. You can't just blame the gun laws and suggest that they inevitably lead to well-adjusted people doing things like this. Sure, the laws probably don't help if someone is inclined towards this sort of thing, but the blame doesn't fall solely on the Constitution.
> 
> Since when is evil a ridiculous notion? You're conflating evil with religion even though there's a very clear secular interpretation of it. Evil is the creation of suffering for its own sake. It's an undeniable reality that it lays the foundation for many of these senseless massacres.
> 
> I'm not a gun guy, and I think that the US probably does need to tighten up its gun laws a bit, *but dismissing mental illness as a factor and dismissing the very existence of evil isn't going to help in figuring out what's going on here.*


So how about this, if you cant pass a mental illness test, then those people should not be allowed to own a gun. deal?


----------



## Stinger Fan (Jun 21, 2006)

birthday_massacre said:


> the only one deflecting here is you but keep downplaying these shootings.
> 
> I brought up the real facts. You are the one who looks ridiculous for making excuses lol
> 
> ...


Someone accidentally shooting themselves in the foot is vastly different than someone purposely shooting and killing nearly 20 people. Only a fool would try to suggest those 2 are comparable, which is exactly what you are trying to do right now. You brought up 17 previous school shootings as a comparison to this shooting, when in actuality they're all very very different. You don't care for facts or else you wouldn't be trying to deflect from the fact that you got baited into believing there was 18 school shooters that each caused fatalities this year


----------



## ipickthiswhiterose (Jul 22, 2017)

Smarky Mark said:


> What is the alternative? That americans should be denied the right to own a gun?


There are lots of alternatives of which that is one.

Another one:

One more obvious one given the state of play is that all citizens have the right to purchase a gun - a shotgun or simple handgun - from (and only from) a licensed gun merchant if they have a clean criminal record, pass a practical and written exam, and apply for a license. Then if after x years they have not had any blips in their record, are a member of a licensed gun club, and have senior members of a gun club bear witness to their responsibility, then they may purchase multiple firearms, including those beyond the initial restricted list. 

I'm sure lots more options can be slotted in somewhere between "Ban literally all the guns" and "Have gun laws so lax that nut-cases can gain access to weapons pretty much designed exclusively for mass murder without an eye being batted"



Smarky Mark said:


> LMAO so who has all the guns? The govt?


You seem unaware that in the 21st century (or indeed the 20th century) what access we as private citizens are given to weapons, it's not going to be in same league as what governments have.

The notion that having the right to weapons is because you can defend yourself against the government may have made some basic sense when both sides were armed with muskets, but we're way beyond that. And that's not because of eeeeeeevil government reasons, just because of technology reasons. 

That argument just has no business being anywhere near the playing field unless you want to start arguing for either extensive military disarmament or for giving private citizens the right to purchase nuclear weapons. Both of which would be ridiculous.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Stinger Fan said:


> Someone accidentally shooting themselves in the foot is vastly different than someone purposely shooting and killing nearly 20 people. Only a fool would try to suggest those 2 are comparable, which is exactly what you are trying to do right now. You brought up 17 previous school shootings as a comparison to this shooting, when in actuality they're all very very different. You don't care for facts or else you wouldn't be trying to deflect from the fact that you got baited into believing there was 18 school shooters that each caused fatalities this year


Yeah harp on one outlier example. But keep deflecting dude. its what you do best.

Also I never said the 18 shootings caused fatalities , stop lying about what I said.


----------



## ipickthiswhiterose (Jul 22, 2017)

Stinger Fan said:


> You're deflecting. When people think of "school shooting" they don't think of a child pulling the trigger of a cops gun or a suicide and you know it.


Yes. Yes they do. Anyone who isn't American at least would see BOTH of these things as a school shooting. That's how warped this debate is.

This has always been something that intrigues me about part of this argument. There is genuinely a level of delusion that perceives suicides with guns as somehow not actually being gun deaths. 

Your post about 'getting facts right because only 3 people were killed by guns' _literally details 4 people being killed by guns_. This is done while in the midst of a polemic about people making sure they aren'y being controlled by an agenda.


----------



## Seb (Jun 13, 2007)

greasykid1 said:


> The arguments have been completely played out a thousand times, with absolutely no results or actions by anyone in government or in the gun manufacture industry.
> 
> At this point, America, as a whole, has made the decision that a couple of dozen dead children every month or two is a fair price to pay to keep their guns in their homes. They have no interest in discussing the matter.


Very well articulated points, you've surmised the real problem here.

The faux outrage will last a couple of weeks, then it'll be swept under the rug with no meaningful action taken, until the next time a bunch of kids are murdered at a school, and the cycle repeats. Kids not even safe in their own schools, God bless America. I'm sure a lot of the parents of kids at that school have similar weapons of their own and feel 'safer' because of it - yet it made zero difference. Those poor kids must have been absolutely terrified, the footage is absolutely harrowing to watch.


----------



## Undertaker23RKO (Jun 11, 2011)

Cabanarama said:


> Of course, because the Republicans put the needs of the terrorist NRA above that of the American people, not a damn thing will be done to prevent shit like this from happening in the future.


You're a piece of shit. This isn't about politics, it's about the kids who died you stupid motherfucker. I'll take a warning for this.


----------



## Stinger Fan (Jun 21, 2006)

ipickthiswhiterose said:


> Yes. Yes they do. Anyone who isn't American at least would see BOTH of these things as a school shooting. That's how warped this debate is.
> 
> This has always been something that intrigues me about part of this argument. There is genuinely a level of delusion that perceives suicides with guns as somehow not actually being gun deaths.
> 
> Your post about 'getting facts right because only 3 people were killed by guns' _literally details 4 people being killed by guns_. This is done while in the midst of a polemic about people making sure they aren'y being controlled by an agenda.


Like I said, people don't think of school shooting as accidents or suicides. They think of this very situation. Suicides are counted as gun related deaths but the point is that they aren't the same as someone walking around a school and killing people. Is it tragic and should be taken seriously? Absolutely, there's no denying that, but what is foolish to me is trying to paint them as the exact same, which they are not.

The article mentions a 4th , the 32 year old man who died . Not sure why it was mentioned exactly but here's part of an article explaining the situation 

"*Around 15 to 20 adults walked into the school's gym and started standing on the sidelines and perimeter of the court. As they were escorted out by the principal, another group of adults followed them, police said. A fight between 25 to 30 adults then took place in the school's parking lot. During the brawl, at least one person took out a gun and fired around eight shots. A 32-year-old man was shot twice in the right leg. He was dropped off at Nazareth Hospital and later transferred to Temple University Hospital where he was pronounced dead at 8:40 p.m*. "

https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/new...ts-Fired-Philadelphia-Lockdown-472007613.html


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Undertaker23RKO said:


> You're a piece of shit. This isn't about politics, it's about the kids who died you stupid motherfucker. I'll take a warning for this.


Its all about politics WTF are you talking about. The NRA and the GOP are in bed together, so shootings like this keep happening.

How is not doing anything about gun control to prevent shootings not political?

How have your thoughts and prayers worked for you in the past?


----------



## Undertaker23RKO (Jun 11, 2011)

birthday_massacre said:


> Its all about politics WTF are you talking about. The NRA and the GOP are in bed together, so shootings like this keep happening.
> 
> How is not doing anything about gun control to prevent shootings not political?
> 
> How have your thoughts and prayers worked for you in the past?


Read the thread title. Here's a hint, it's not "Gun control argument", something which I am for btw. Dumbass.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Undertaker23RKO said:


> Read the thread title. Here's a hint, it's not "Gun control argument", something which I am for btw. Dumbass.


Yes it is a gun contol argument. This shooting could have been prevented.


----------



## Laughable Chimp (Sep 1, 2016)

Undertaker23RKO said:


> Read the thread title. Here's a hint, it's not "Gun control argument", something which I am for btw. Dumbass.


Stop being an ass please. The people who are going to politics have a right to do that since its politics that’s in the way of change right now. Because they want these shootings to not happen again.

So again, stop being an ass.


----------



## ipickthiswhiterose (Jul 22, 2017)

Stinger Fan said:


> Like I said, people don't think of school shooting as accidents or suicides.


And I disagreed and said that in the vast majorities of western societies that aren't the US they do think exactly that.

Those two examples you give....

I assure you that if a 3 year old in school somehow got access to pull the trigger of an active gun carried by a police officer in Holland.......national news
In Ireland.......national news
In New Zealand......national news
In France.......national news
In the UK........national news 

Same with the student shooting themselves on school property. Heck, heres a national-level news story of a young person tragically shooting himself in his family home, never mind a school. 
That's how rare it is in most other western cultures.



Stinger Fan said:


> They think of this very situation. Suicides are counted as gun related deaths but the point is that they aren't the same as someone walking around a school and killing people. Is it tragic and should be taken seriously? Absolutely, there's no denying that, but what is foolish to me is trying to paint them as the exact same, which they are not.


It depends on what your collective is. If it is "Truly horrendous national tragedies that have ended many lives" then no, certainly not. But if it is "Ridiculous examples of firearms being deployed in schools, where guns have no business being" then they can be collected together. 

The fact that not all occasions of guns firing inside or into school properties result in this particularly extreme level of severity, doesn't mean they shouldn't/can't be used as examples of situations that simply shouldn't be happening.


----------



## greasykid1 (Dec 22, 2015)

Smarky Mark said:


> What is the alternative? That americans should be denied the right to own a gun?


Yes.


----------



## PrettyLush (Nov 26, 2017)

Would gun ownership really allow people to defend themselves against their own "oppressive" government? I mean if the gov wants you dead then you're dead, your punny 50-cal rifle won't stand a chance.


----------



## DJHJR86 (Jan 31, 2015)

I want someone to explain to me how, at the age of 19, you could buy an AR-15 legally, but not a can of beer.


----------



## greasykid1 (Dec 22, 2015)

DJHJR86 said:


> I want someone to explain to me how, at the age of 19, you could buy an AR-15 legally, but not a can of beer.


Well, beer is DANGEROUS.

But an automatic rifle is simply a hobbyist’s toy, or for personal protection. What can possibly go wrong?! :hmmm


----------



## Headliner (Jun 24, 2004)

@Genesis 1.0 let's have a one on one discussion pal. I find it funny that nobody here is talking about how the shooter is linked to white supremacist groups. If this was a Muslim, your usual suspects would be in here like white on rice to demonize Muslims and this thread would be a million pages by now full of bullshit. A similar demonization would happen if the shooter was a hispanic illegal immigrant. 

White extremism is the biggest terrorist threat to america, but nah it ain't terrorism when white folks do it. Ain't no threads when they commit violent hate crimes but let's pop shit about Chicago, Baltimore, etc. These white suspects just got a mental illness and we suppose to feel bad. The black, hispanic and Muslim suspects are barbaric animals. Fuck outta here.


----------



## PrettyLush (Nov 26, 2017)

Damn, shit just got real.


----------



## hrryhll (Oct 28, 2016)

If Americans didn’t care enough after 6 year olds got slaughtered then they never will. Having the opportunity to look like John Wayne is obviously more important to them.


----------



## greasykid1 (Dec 22, 2015)

Headliner said:


> @Genesis 1.0 let's have a one on one discussion pal. I find it funny that nobody here is talking about how the shooter is linked to white supremacist groups. If this was a Muslim, your usual suspects would be in here like white on rice to demonize Muslims and this thread would be a million pages by now full of bullshit. A similar demonization would happen if the shooter was a hispanic illegal immigrant.
> 
> White extremism is the biggest terrorist threat to america, but nah it ain't terrorism when white folks do it. Ain't no threads when they commit violent hate crimes but let's pop shit about Chicago, Baltimore, etc. These white suspects just got a mental illness and we suppose to feel bad. The black, hispanic and Muslim suspects are barbaric animals. Fuck outta here.


Absolutely.

I just assumed the dude was white, right from the start. Because they took him alive. If he’d had any colour at all to his skin, he would have been shot about 30 times before his body hit the floor.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

2 Ton 21 said:


> I was thinking about the shooting while I was making breakfast and it hit me why nothing changes; people aren't shocked.
> 
> Sure they're sad, angry, depressed, but not shocked. Think about what we see on the news. Witness accounts. Kids huddled in a class room in fear. Kids running to buses to get away. Similar videos from other shootings every time.
> 
> ...


Passing new laws or revoking rights based on emotional reactions to disturbing images is one of the worst uses of democracy I can think of. Hard pass.

Meanwhile a lot of uninformed partisan hacks on Twitter seem to be under the impression that Trump has made it easier for people with mental health issues to get access to guns. This isn't the case.

https://reason.com/blog/2018/02/15/no-trump-did-not-make-it-easier-for-ment

Really unfortunate how quick people will use a tragedy to smear their political opponents.


----------



## Mango13 (Aug 22, 2016)

I really want to know what people think the banning of the AR15 would accomplish? Do you really think that if the gun was banned tomorrow these types of things wouldn't happen anymore? If someone is fucked up enough that they want to go through with something like this they are just going to use a different weapon. 

The Glock 19 has a magazine capacity of 15 with optional 33 round extended mags...so do you want to ban all handguns next?


----------



## FITZ (May 8, 2007)

2 Ton 21 said:


> I was thinking about the shooting while I was making breakfast and it hit me why nothing changes; people aren't shocked.
> 
> Sure they're sad, angry, depressed, but not shocked. Think about what we see on the news. Witness accounts. Kids huddled in a class room in fear. Kids running to buses to get away. Similar videos from other shootings every time.
> 
> ...


I’m not sure I get this. You seem to want laws to be made based off some really emotional images and then talk about an example where doing that didn’t work out.


----------



## ipickthiswhiterose (Jul 22, 2017)

CamillePunk said:


> Passing new laws or revoking rights based on emotional reactions to disturbing images is one of the worst uses of democracy I can think of. Hard pass.


Indeed. Gun control advocates have advocated for gun control long before and long after attacks such as these. Using emotive imagery shouldn't be necessary and hardens those who don't believe in it as it creates a false impression that they are 'pragmatic'. 



CamillePunk said:


> Meanwhile a lot of uninformed partisan hacks on Twitter seem to be under the impression that Trump has made it easier for people with mental health issues to get access to guns. This isn't the case.
> 
> https://reason.com/blog/2018/02/15/no-trump-did-not-make-it-easier-for-ment


I don't know whether you actually read the article or just skimmed the headline (or perhaps didn't expect anyone here to actually click the link), but that is literally exactly what this article says: Trump prevented a rule that would have placed onto the gun licensing database a list of people who have mental impairments so severe that they require state support. That's literally exactly what this article says.



CamillePunk said:


> Really unfortunate how quick people will use a tragedy to smear their political opponents.


https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/925684982307348480?lang=en



Mango13 said:


> Do you really think that if the gun was banned tomorrow these types of things wouldn't happen anymore?


This mentality.

This mentality right here.

You are aware that Australia did exactly that in 1997?

And that the UK did it with handguns in 1996?

You can't pretend that it won't work when it has already worked.


----------



## Mango13 (Aug 22, 2016)

ipickthiswhiterose said:


> This mentality.
> 
> This mentality right here.
> 
> ...




Your demonizing one style of weapon because it has the capacity to inflict mass damage based on the # of rounds it can hold, I'm just saying there are pistols out there that can hold just the same amount of rounds.

So do you want to ban the AR15 or all Weapons?


----------



## Ratedr4life (Dec 18, 2008)

Smarky Mark said:


> Yea there probably aren't as many sick fucks living in those countries.
> 
> America has a lot of sick fucks.
> 
> ...


Not raising sick fucks is definitely part of the answer. But arming civilians with assault rifles contributes to this and serves no purpose either.

Do you belong to a "well regulated militia" that is going to overthrow a tyrannical government? No, didn't think so. If the US government decided to wage war on its citizens, you would do fuck all.

If guns aren't the problem, would you mind if I had access to the nuclear launch codes? I don't have any mental illness and I want access to them to protect myself and my family. I'll only use them when warranted.


----------



## ipickthiswhiterose (Jul 22, 2017)

Mango13 said:


> So do you want to ban the AR15 or all Weapons?


I lay out my opening suggestion a few posts above. That's a starting point and I think it should be a conversation.

I think a part of the problem is that there needs to be considerable gun control without excessive outright banning. But to do that requires an extensive conversation with and co-operation from gun clubs and societies nationwide. And that sadly can't happen right now because of the centralised power of the NRA and the lack of trust on all sides of what each others' end goals are.


----------



## Ratedr4life (Dec 18, 2008)

This tweet is almost 3 years old, but it sums up the US gun control debate perfectly.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/611943312401002496


----------



## Kabraxal (Jun 14, 2004)

Why do the same people continually appeal to emotion and trying to demonise gun owners... and always latch onto a tragedy to thump their chest in false victory? 

Shit happens. Gun control won’t change that. Stop letting fear rule your lives.


----------



## The Hardcore Show (Apr 13, 2003)

Kabraxal said:


> Why do the same people continually appeal to emotion and trying to demonise gun owners... and always latch onto a tragedy to thump their chest in false victory?
> 
> Shit happens. Gun control won’t change that. Stop letting fear rule your lives.


So pretty much their is no answer to ever have some sort or control over these things happening. It's just part of life that people have to deal with?


----------



## Mango13 (Aug 22, 2016)

The Hardcore Show said:


> So pretty much their is no answer to ever have some sort or control over these things happening. It's just part of life that people have to deal with?


He is kind of right though, whenever something like this happens you have a million people come out of the wood works and clamor for stricter gun control laws or the out right banning of all guns. 

If these people feel so strongly about this and truly do believe this then why aren't they constantly pushing their agenda in an order to try and effect some sort of change? Instead they only come out when a tragedy like this occurs.


----------



## Kabraxal (Jun 14, 2004)

The Hardcore Show said:


> So pretty much their is no answer to ever have some sort or control over these things happening. It's just part of life that people have to deal with?


Gun control won’t fix anything. And tragedy has always been a fact of life... heart attacks, cancer, car accidents, bombings, and a slew of such things happen and will continue to happen.

Hell, look at Europe and its recnt violent outbursts... they have stricter gun control but it hasn’t actually done much. The tool is never the issue. It’s the stain known as humanity. Tragedy will always becentral to our existence.


----------



## ipickthiswhiterose (Jul 22, 2017)

Kabraxal said:


> Gun control won’t fix anything. And tragedy has always been a fact of life... heart attacks, cancer, car accidents, bombings, and a slew of such things happen and will continue to happen.
> 
> Hell, look at Europe and its recnt violent outbursts... they have stricter gun control but it hasn’t actually done much. The tool is never the issue. It’s the stain known as humanity. Tragedy will always becentral to our existence.


This is an honestly clueless post.

Gun control HAS fixed things in other countries. Drastically. Australia being the most obvious all-encompassing, undeniable example.

Saying there's 'violent outbursts' in Europe displays utter vagueness and saying that increased gun control there doesn't have an effect there is simply ignorant.

Proof?

There's Some

And in another form


----------



## Hencheman_21 (Apr 11, 2014)

Smarky Mark said:


> You mean like when they're all leaving school!?!?
> 
> We want to keep nukes out of N. Korea's hand because they're our enemy and we don't give a fuck about their freedom to pursue defense.
> 
> That is not the same as keeping weapons out of the hands of your own citizens.


Yes cause there would be dozens of people in one are with no where to run at that time. Or do you think the kids would just stand there as a truck is coming at them and let them be run over. Maybe think before you post. 

So you are saying you are fine with Americans dying as long as it is at the hands of former Americans? That is a fucked up way to think. Shame on you.


----------



## DJHJR86 (Jan 31, 2015)

Headliner said:


> I find it funny that nobody here is talking about how the shooter is linked to white supremacist groups


Well because as of right now:



> Leon County law enforcement sources told the Tallahassee Democrat that they could not find information linking Cruz, 19, to the Republic of Florida Militia, as claimed by the group’s self-proclaimed leader Jordan Jereb.


http://www.tallahassee.com/story/ne...ist-militia-tallahassee-leader-say/341751002/


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

Kabraxal said:


> Gun control won’t fix anything. And tragedy has always been a fact of life... heart attacks, cancer, car accidents, bombings, and a slew of such things happen and will continue to happen.
> 
> Hell, look at Europe and its recnt violent outbursts... they have stricter gun control but it hasn’t actually done much. The tool is never the issue. It’s the stain known as humanity. Tragedy will always becentral to our existence.


Nonsense. We've had 1 school shooting massacre in the UK. 1 in 1996. As a result of that we tightened our gun control even further, and what do you know, we've never had another one. Why is it that you have 3 times the murder rate per capita than almost every other western country who has stricter gun control? Why are your police carrying guns and murdering people at insane rates? That doesn't happen in countries where we have gun control. You're talking out of your arse tbh, and people like you are a HUGE part of the reason you've had 18 school shootings since the start of 2018 when everybody else hasn't at all. Funny that.


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

Kabraxal said:


> Why do the same people continually appeal to emotion and trying to demonise gun owners... and always latch onto a tragedy to thump their chest in false victory?
> 
> Shit happens. Gun control won’t change that. Stop letting fear rule your lives.


Sorry but are you an 11 year old child?

Crazy gun rampages like this tend to continually happen at such an alarming rate in the US only. 

Instances of toddlers for pete's sake accidentally shooting their family members tends to happen in the US only - look it up.

I could go on with more and more example - this shit happens because of the US love affair with their precious constitution amendment about guns and being duped into thinking it's part of being patriotic or something dumb like that.

Honestly dude, if shit happens is the best you can do, then don't bother.


----------



## Nolo King (Aug 22, 2006)

By the way, there would have been ANOTHER school shooting had it not been stopped by the suspects grandmother.

https://nypost.com/2018/02/14/student-arrested-on-suspicion-of-school-shooting-plan/



> EVERETT, Wash. — Everett police arrested an 18-year-old student Tuesday whom they believe was planning to shoot people at his high school.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Maybe something needs to be done about immortalizing past school shooters because future killers are drawing inspiration from that.


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

Nolo King said:


> By the way, there would have been ANOTHER school shooting had it not been stopped by the suspects grandmother.
> 
> https://nypost.com/2018/02/14/student-arrested-on-suspicion-of-school-shooting-plan/
> 
> ...


Tell the fucking media. They keep glorifying this fuckers for a headline. Disturbed even did a song lambasting the media for it.


----------



## Headliner (Jun 24, 2004)

DJHJR86 said:


> Well because as of right now:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.tallahassee.com/story/ne...ist-militia-tallahassee-leader-say/341751002/


Nah you don't know this forum's history. If he literally had a nazi t-shirt on and said die naggars die this wouldn't be discussed unless me or 2 or 3 others posted it. This shit gets slid under the rug.

Btw pal:


> “For example, he would degrade Islamic people as terrorists and bombers. I've seen him wear a Trump hat,” Parodie said.
> 
> Josh Charo, a 16-year-old junior who was in JROTC with Cruz often expressed racist beliefs.
> 
> “He would always talk about how he felt whites were a bit higher than everyone,” Charo said. “He'd be like ‘My people are over here industrializing the world and starting new things, while your people [meaning blacks and Latinos] are just taking up space.’”


https://www.thedailybeast.com/nikolas-cruz-trained-with-florida-white-supremacist-group-leader-says



> In one Instragram post, Cruz posted a screengrab of Google search results for 'what does allahu akbar' mean. Allahu Akbar means 'God is great' in Arabic, and is something Islamist terrorist often shout before attacks.
> 
> He captioned the photo: 'Well at least we know what it means when a sand durka [a racial expletive for an Arab person] says 'allahu akbar' [laughing face emojis].'





> Adam said he didn't believe that Cruz was bullied but said he did seem to be a loner and he believed he held racist and extreme political views.


https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/55827...neighbours-and-throw-coconuts-at-their-homes/
White supremacist garbage. Fuck him. Fuck his mental illness. He's a violent barbaric thug that should have been dealt with a while ago.


----------



## Kabraxal (Jun 14, 2004)

yeahbaby! said:


> Sorry but are you an 11 year old child?
> 
> Crazy gun rampages like this tend to continually happen at such an alarming rate in the US only.
> 
> ...


And yet everytime you and your ilk scream your babbling nonsense, you don’t want to deal with the actual facts of the issue. The US has a few cities with issues of gun crime, with most linked to major urban problems you people don’t want to mention. This country has owned guns for a long time and yet school shoorings had been extremely rare until recently (if we go by real mass shootings and not the “progressive” iodiocy then it is still actually rare). And for the amount of guns “violence” in this country, a majority of it is suicide or suicide attempts. Actual mass shootings, despite the fearful’s screaming, are still a miniscule number. The 

And if you want to bring up accidental deaths, well... why nother, you people don’t like talking about problems that are greater than guns. Gun control hysteria makes you feel warm and fuzzy, so why bother with all the favts that put your hysteria in the proper paranoid bubble in which it exists.

Keep on screaming. Your irrational fear is swaying no one. Rational people know guns aren’t the issue.


----------



## FITZ (May 8, 2007)

Nolo King said:


> By the way, there would have been ANOTHER school shooting had it not been stopped by the suspects grandmother.
> 
> https://nypost.com/2018/02/14/student-arrested-on-suspicion-of-school-shooting-plan/
> 
> ...


The Collumbine shooters have inspired so many. Even if people don’t realize they’ve been inspired by Columbine they still have been. 

There’s no way that can be avoided. It’s radical Islam for white losers. 

Who are Islamic terrorists? They’re losers with no friends that get brain washed by dumb shit because they get to be in a group and part of some grand cause. School shooters (most of them at least) are white losers with no friends that do what they do to immortalize themselves and be remembered forever. It’s the same idea.


----------



## Lady Eastwood (Jul 10, 2006)

There is one big reason why guns wont ever go away in America. Three letters: NRA.

I am going to assume what I read today is factual in which he made comments on youtube that he wanted to recreate the first mass shooting and the person who responded to him alerted authorities and obviously nothing happened to this kid.

Many Americans are on board with stricter gun laws, I don't unserstand why it's not made harder to get them. Anyone can obtain one, but, then again, even if the person getting one is of sound mind, people steal the guns and use them, so, really, even if everyone who ever got a gun was qualified to own one without incident, some fuckwit will always get their hands on it, or, some idiot will leave their gun on the table and a kid who doesn't know any better will shoot someone, or themselves.

When I comes to violence, I also blame the media. They tend to go in to a lot of detail and then you end up with fucking copycats. I don't think there needs to be exact details on how to make a pressure cooker in to a bomb or how to make weapons off the internet.


People also need to take things they see more seriously. This clown had an instagram account that showed many signs of fucked up behaviour, with him being obsessed with guns and violence. No one obsessed with these two things should ever be ignored by any means. The authorities need to stop ignoring people reporting this shit. Even if some dude posted himself posing with guns in various different ways, and, after an investigation, it turns out the guy is normal, at least they looked in to it and we can sleep at night.


----------



## The Reaper (Jul 23, 2016)

This mental illness crap Trump described is a load of shit, almost anytime a shooting happens this is always brought up and the gun laws always take a back seat. This was PREMEDITATED, he knew exactly what he was doing and it wasn't like it was a spur of the moment thing, he was talking about killing people for a while. Sort the fucking gun laws out, people shouldn't be able to walk into stores and purchase automatic weaponry that's ridiculous. I'm not saying the gunner bought it, could of been his father but this is a joke.

I heard a statistic on the radio saying there have been more shootings in America this year so far than the ENTIRE WORLD. 18 shootings so far, 2 and a half months into 2018. Stop with this mental illness bullshit and make some highly strict gun laws, i'm not saying that it's going to put end to the problem but you got to start from somewhere.


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

Kabraxal said:


> And yet everytime you and your ilk scream your babbling nonsense, you don’t want to deal with the actual facts of the issue. The US has a few cities with issues of gun crime, with most linked to major urban problems you people don’t want to mention. This country has owned guns for a long time and yet school shoorings had been extremely rare until recently (if we go by real mass shootings and not the “progressive” iodiocy then it is still actually rare). And for the amount of guns “violence” in this country, a majority of it is suicide or suicide attempts. Actual mass shootings, despite the fearful’s screaming, are still a miniscule number. The
> 
> And if you want to bring up accidental deaths, well... why nother, you people don’t like talking about problems that are greater than guns. Gun control hysteria makes you feel warm and fuzzy, so why bother with all the favts that put your hysteria in the proper paranoid bubble in which it exists.
> 
> Keep on screaming. Your irrational fear is swaying no one. Rational people know guns aren’t the issue.


How was this shooting linked to major urban problems? How was the vegas concert shooting connected to urban problems? How was Sandy Hook and all the others related to urban problems?

How is this not related to gun control at all? From September last year.




> A toddler accidentally shot a child dead and injured two others at a home daycare facility, police said. The wounded children, believed to be three-years-old, were taken to hospital in critical but stable condition following the incident in Dearborn, Detroit, on Wednesday.
> 
> A preliminary investigation has revealed the toddler ‘accessed a handgun and the weapon discharged’.
> 
> ...


How can gun control NOT be part of the answer to preventing occurances like these? You tell me.


----------



## The Reaper (Jul 23, 2016)

Also fuck the NRA, money-hungry pricks they wouldn't give a fuck about this shooting or any other. Can't believe politicians fear them.


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

The Reaper said:


> Also fuck the NRA, money-hungry pricks they wouldn't give a fuck about this shooting or any other. Can't believe politicians fear them.


Because they have money and influence. Same with the oil and pharmaceutical companies


----------



## The Reaper (Jul 23, 2016)

virus21 said:


> Because they have money and influence. Same with the oil and pharmaceutical companies


Money > Human Life

What a fucked up world we live in.


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

The Reaper said:


> Money > Human Life
> 
> What a fucked up world we live in.


Its always been that way.


----------



## DJHJR86 (Jan 31, 2015)

Headliner said:


> Btw pal:
> 
> White supremacist garbage. Fuck him. Fuck his mental illness. He's a violent barbaric thug that should have been dealt with a while ago.


He should be dealt with now. A bullet in the head saves taxpayers money. Just get it over with. Same with Dylan Roof.


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

DJHJR86 said:


> He should be dealt with now. A bullet in the head saves taxpayers money. Just get it over with. Same with Dylan Roof.


But they have rights and blah blah blah


----------



## Ben Lister (Jul 7, 2017)

The American Dream they called it, what a load of horse shit.


----------



## Stephen90 (Mar 31, 2015)

The Reaper said:


> Also fuck the NRA, money-hungry pricks they wouldn't give a fuck about this shooting or any other. Can't believe politicians fear them.


Can't wait for the NRA to start trying to blame video games again.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

Ben Lister said:


> The American Dream they called it, what a load of horse shit.


They call it the American Dream because you have to be asleep to believe it. -Carlin


----------



## Buffy The Vampire Slayer (May 31, 2011)

_*What they should have done is sent the kid to the mental help before this even happened.*_


----------



## FITZ (May 8, 2007)

Catalanotto said:


> There is one big reason why guns wont ever go away in America. Three letters: NRA.


The NRA get a lot of money from gun companies. But they have 5 million members. And there are a lot of people in the United States support a good percentage of their message. They are funded by big money but they have a lot of support. I have family members who make up a few of those 5 million people. And I have more family members that are gun owners and aren't members but still support them. 



yeahbaby! said:


> How was this shooting linked to major urban problems? How was the vegas concert shooting connected to urban problems? How was Sandy Hook and all the others related to urban problems?
> 
> How is this not related to gun control at all? From September last year.
> 
> ...


I don't think the stuff about urban problems really is relevant here. The US has a murder rate that is higher than it should. The US also has a problem with mass shootings. 

The only similarity between the two is the gun control debate. 

There are a lot of cities in the US that have murder rates that are insane. But then you have a huge portion of the population that aren't affected by this at all. Where I live we have like 1 murder a year. And there are a ton of other places that are like where I live. The US murder rate and the safety of my community are nothing alike. We don't have a problem with gun violence. 

But we could have some kid go crazy and do something like this. 



BTheVampireSlayer said:


> _*What they should have done is sent the kid to the mental help before this even happened.*_


What crime did he commit? Being hateful and an asshole is not a crime and people can't make you go and get therapy just because they don't like the stuff your saying. 

What mechanism should they have used to MAKE him get help.


----------



## El Grappleador (Jan 9, 2018)

The next song is dedicated who needs to survive to tragedy like it.


----------



## 2 Ton 21 (Dec 28, 2011)

CamillePunk said:


> Passing new laws or revoking rights based on emotional reactions to disturbing images is one of the worst uses of democracy I can think of. Hard pass.
> 
> Meanwhile a lot of uninformed partisan hacks on Twitter seem to be under the impression that Trump has made it easier for people with mental health issues to get access to guns. This isn't the case.
> 
> ...





FITZ said:


> I’m not sure I get this. You seem to want laws to be made based off some really emotional images and then talk about an example where doing that didn’t work out.


Sorry guys. I wasn't clear in what I meant. Every time this happens people want to know what it will take for things to change. My point was that showing that is the one thing that would probably force change but that it won't be a result they will be happy with long term. Thinking on it now my post was kind of ineffectual.


----------



## The Reaper (Jul 23, 2016)

DJHJR86 said:


> He should be dealt with now. A bullet in the head saves taxpayers money. Just get it over with. Same with Dylan Roof.


I agree why the fuck do they let them spend decades on death row, once he's been sentence execute the mother fucker in the court room for all i care.


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

The Reaper said:


> Money > Human Life
> 
> What a fucked up *COUNTRY* we live in.


Fixed that for you. Most of the rest of us don't put arms sales and "hurr durr mahh gunnzz" above the safety of our people.


----------



## Piers (Sep 1, 2015)

Chrome said:


> Another day in America. :francis


.


----------



## DoctorWhosawhatsit (Aug 23, 2016)

RavishingRickRules said:


> Fixed that for you. Most of the rest of us don't put arms sales and "hurr durr mahh gunnzz" above the safety of our people.


That's my favorite part, other than the typical "outlaw guns, what's next pencils and chewing gum?!", of American politicians saying shit like "who knows if gun control even works, we just don't have enough data".

England: gun control: years since last mass shooting
Australia: gun control: years since last mass shooting
Canada: gun control: years since last mass shooting
Japan: gun control: years since last mass shooting

The list goes on and on. The "data" is over whelming it's just American politicians wont acknowledge it, usually in favor of a nice check from the NRA or the votes of even dumber gun totting supporters.


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

The Reaper said:


> Also fuck the NRA, money-hungry pricks they wouldn't give a fuck about this shooting or any other. Can't believe politicians fear them.


The NRA isn't that rich to buy or large enough to organise all these votes. The key is their marketing over the years managed to brainwash a large group of people into associating owning guns with freedom AND security. If you desire more freedom, they will sell you one BS. If you wish to have more security, have BS meal #2. Truely brilliant marketing.


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

DoctorWhosawhatsit said:


> That's my favorite part, other than the typical "outlaw guns, what's next pencils and chewing gum?!", of American politicians saying shit like "who knows if gun control even works, we just don't have enough data".
> 
> England: gun control: years since last mass shooting
> Australia: gun control: years since last mass shooting
> ...


It's not just about mass shootings, it's about murders period. Let's compare:

UK (Strict gun control): 0.92 murders per 100,000 people (2015)
Australia (introduced strict gun control in the 90's in response to massacres): 0.98 (2015)
Japan (VERY strict gun control): 0.32 (2014)
Canada (tight gun control, more open than the UK etc): 1.68 (2015)

USA (gun control? pah! give me gunnnzzzz): 4.88 (2015)

I don't think it's particularly difficult to ascertain the trend? This isn't just for criminals either, compare how many "deaths by police" there are in the USA compared to most other western countries. When you have gun control, you don't need gun toting maniac cops, they're also not on edge all of the time because everybody and their Grandma isn't tooled up to the eyeballs. Got a knife? In the UK the police get batons and take it from you then lock you up, in America you're dead. Holding a rock in a threatening way? Dead. Reach towards your pants whilst being confronted by police? Dead. Great system. Really. Great.


----------



## DoctorWhosawhatsit (Aug 23, 2016)

FriedTofu said:


> The NRA isn't that rich to buy or large enough to organise all these votes. The key is their marketing over the years managed to brainwash a large group of people into associating owning guns with freedom AND security. If you desire more freedom, they will sell you one BS. If you wish to have more security, have BS meal #2. Truely brilliant marketing.


A lot of what you said about the NRA's marketing, brainwashing, and conning people is true but the NRA do have some VERY deep pockets. The brilliant part of what they do is instead of donating directly to candidates they'll work with the candidate in an unofficial capacity by running ads against their opponent, which isn't considered a donation or cutback or bribe or whatever you want to call it.

This article http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/oct/11/counting-up-how-much-nra-spends/ goes much more in depth about NRA spending but to bottom line it since 1998 the NRA have spent, at least, 203.2 million dollars on political activities, over $55 million of which was spent in 2016 and over $30 million of which was spent in 2014.

That might not be enough to basically buy a political party like the Koch brothers and Rupert Murdoch have, but it's more than enough to sway, influence, or flat out kill political action.


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

Best solution I've seen so far tbh.


----------



## DoctorWhosawhatsit (Aug 23, 2016)

RavishingRickRules said:


> Best solution I've seen so far tbh.


"Second amendment der der der God given rights der der der I need my giant semi automatic rifle to hunt!"

Always the same excuses with these people.


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

DoctorWhosawhatsit said:


> "Second amendment der der der God given rights der der der I need my giant semi automatic rifle to hunt!"
> 
> Always the same excuses with these people.


Hunting definitely doesn't hold up as an excuse. I'm British, my father owns 2 shotguns and a hunting rifle, because he enjoys those activities and that's perfectly fine under gun control laws. That's the funny thing about actually putting effort in controlling who has guns or not, the people who are responsible and not psychopathic nutjobs can still have guns. They just can't walk around with a loaded handgun (it's not for "defence" if it was you'd hear of at least a few citizens who carry intervening in these massacres, funny that) or stockpile weapons to go on killing sprees. You want guns for hunting or shooting at the range? Cool, but you better pass a whole mess of evaluations first. We have guns here, we also have criminals with guns here, and yet, nowhere close to the murder rate, gun related death rate or police related death rate. That's the silliest thing about people who try and argue with those of us not living in gun-mania, we don't have to "prove" anything, we live it. And tbh it's pretty fucking sweet.


----------



## DoctorWhosawhatsit (Aug 23, 2016)

RavishingRickRules said:


> Hunting definitely doesn't hold up as an excuse. I'm British, my father owns 2 shotguns and a hunting rifle, because he enjoys those activities and that's perfectly fine under gun control laws. That's the funny thing about actually putting effort in controlling who has guns or not, the people who are responsible and not psychopathic nutjobs can still have guns. They just can't walk around with a loaded handgun (it's not for "defence" if it was you'd hear of at least a few citizens who carry intervening in these massacres, funny that) or stockpile weapons to go on killing sprees. You want guns for hunting or shooting at the range? Cool, but you better pass a whole mess of evaluations first. We have guns here, we also have criminals with guns here, and yet, nowhere close to the murder rate, gun related death rate or police related death rate. That's the silliest thing about people who try and argue with those of us not living in gun-mania, we don't have to "prove" anything, we live it. And tbh it's pretty fucking sweet.


None of the cut and pasted excuses hold up. I mean "God given right to own a gun" what the fuck does that even mean? "Need it to hunt" if you need an AR-15 to hit a deer it's not sport. The list goes on and on.

The... I was going to say hilarious, but the better word is asinine, part in all of this is, like you said, gun control doesn't mean you can't have a gun. It means if you want a gun you have to be _responsible enough_ to have a gun.


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

DoctorWhosawhatsit said:


> None of the cut and pasted excuses hold up. I mean "God given right to own a gun" what the fuck does that even mean? "Need it to hunt" if you need an AR-15 to hit a deer it's not sport. The list goes on and on.
> 
> The... I was going to say hilarious, but the better word is asinine, part in all of this is, like you said, gun control doesn't mean you can't have a gun. It means if you want a gun you have to be _responsible enough_ to have a gun.


EXACTLY. And to be quite frank, have you seen the majority of people? I wouldn't trust most of them to cook me a meal, never mind carry a lethal weapon. It shouldn't be the majority of people, it should be a very small minority. People drink drive, but let's give them guns. People get into fights just because they've had a few beers, but let's give them guns. People will cause riots over SPORTS, but sure, let's give them guns? It's absolutely ridiculous. I have staff members earning £60k($85k) a year with top degrees from some of the best universities in the UK who aren't even smart enough not to watch porn on their work devices, there's no way in hell I'd trust these idiots with an instrument of easy murder. People as a collective are flaky, irresponsible, lack intelligence and rational behaviour, most of them should NOT be given an easy way to kill people.


----------



## ForYourOwnGood (Jul 19, 2016)

If a society can sit idly by when children are butchered, there is no amount of reason or logical debate which can shift their moral compass.
As animals, all our instincts tell us to protect our young, as they are extensions of ourselves and represent the furtherance of our species. To then try and rationalize endangering those children is proof enough that such people do not have a functioning conscience.

On a practical level, America must realize that the government must sometimes act as a moral authority, and that "the people" are not always right and can not always judge what is in their best interests.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

ForYourOwnGood said:


> On a practical level, America must realize that the government must sometimes act as a moral authority, and that "the people" are not always right and can not always judge what is in their best interests.


no

the government is made up of people, not superhumans

also according to the left the president is literally hitler so idk why they're so keen to disarm everyone except HITLER


----------



## DesolationRow (Oct 11, 2009)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/964250532918546437


----------



## ForYourOwnGood (Jul 19, 2016)

CamillePunk said:


> no
> 
> the government is made up of people, not superhumans
> 
> also according to the left the president is literally hitler so idk why they're so keen to disarm everyone except HITLER


Don't get me started on the Hitler comparisons. People have been pulling that shit since Nixon. Which I guess makes Trump, like, Hitler number five? I keep losing count.

But I maintain that an armed populace is too much power to invest in ordinary people. There must always be a hierarchy, that's how society works. It's a covenant of sorts, with obedience owed by the people and protection owed by the state.
America, though, was founded on principles of individual enterprise. Which is both the source of its strength, and the root cause of its social instability.


----------



## Vic Capri (Jun 7, 2006)

Taking away a Constitutional right is one step closer to a tyrannical government.

- Vic


----------



## deadcool (May 4, 2006)

Who was the shooter and why did he kill all those people?


----------



## greasykid1 (Dec 22, 2015)

Vic Capri said:


> Taking away a Constitutional right is one step closer to a tyrannical government.
> 
> - Vic


I'd agree, but this "right" is based upon a blatant and purposeful misinterpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

The 2nd Amendment guarantees the people that the government protect them with an armed, "well regulated militia".

How can anyone keep a straight face while stating that allowing literally every private citizen in a country to own any kind of gun they want ... is "well regulated"?

As I've already stated in this thread, the 2nd Amendment is itself a change to the constitution. If it can be changed once, it can be changed again. Hell, the constitution has been reworded, changed and added to dozens of times, up to and including the mid-1900s.

Arguing that you should never be allowed to change a document, while you constantly insist that a previous change be upheld is ridiculous.


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

CamillePunk said:


> no
> 
> the government is made up of people, not superhumans
> 
> also according to the left the president is literally hitler so idk why they're so keen to disarm everyone except HITLER


The best reason, saving lives. The statistics are on the side of gun control, that's why the rest of the Western world who don't feel ANY Tyranny don't suffer from a ridiculous murder rate, masses of school shootings and police killings. Simples.


----------



## greasykid1 (Dec 22, 2015)

RavishingRickRules said:


> The best reason, saving lives. The statistics are on the side of gun control, that's why the rest of the Western world who don't feel ANY Tyranny don't suffer from a ridiculous murder rate, masses of school shootings and police killings. Simples.


Stand by for the tired old argument about Chicago's gun crime and it's gun control. People love bringing that one out - while completely ignoring the fact that guns used in Chicago are pretty much all purchased legally from other states.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/11/07/where-the-guns-used-in-chicago-actually-came-from/?utm_term=.8b934d75c4d3

If you make it hard to buy guns, fewer people will buy guns. Will it solve 100% of the problem? Of course not. But any reduction is an improvement.

Gun Control isn't about denying all Americans of their right to own a gun. It's about making sure that, if you have served jail time, if you have violence in your past, or if you have a mental disorder that can lead to violence, you can't own a gun.

If you're not a criminal, and you're not a psychopath, you can still have your toys.


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

greasykid1 said:


> Stand by for the tired old argument about Chicago's gun crime and it's gun control. People love bringing that one out - while completely ignoring the fact that guns used in Chicago are pretty much all purchased legally from other states.
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/11/07/where-the-guns-used-in-chicago-actually-came-from/?utm_term=.8b934d75c4d3
> 
> ...


They can use whatever argument they want, I'm not the one living in a place where school shootings and police killing and being killed are common occurrences. Why? Gun control.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

Tyranny already happened in 1860's. The 2nd amendment was rendered obsolete then. There is no second amendment. The argument that "we can use our guns to fight a tyrannical government" is mostly an ideological argument at the moment. The 2nd amendment has its uses, but to say that this is what prevents America from having tyrannical governments etc etc is practically a pointless argument. 

At the very least, I would like to see all these "responsible gun owners" that I've heard about GO AND PATROL THE FUCKING SCHOOLS WITH THEIR DOZENS OF GUNS. 

Go and DO SOMETHING you people. You have the guns. VOLUNTEER AT THOSE SCHOOLS! Form volunteer groups. Protect the schools instead of whining about "people taking away your guns" on Twitter! Show us why you deserve to have these guns.


----------



## PrettyLush (Nov 26, 2017)

A sexually frustrated white kid with a gun became a nightmare for the gated community.


----------



## Seb (Jun 13, 2007)

The Reaper said:


> Money > Human Life
> 
> What a fucked up world America we live in.


Corrected.

We had a similar school shooting in 1996 in the UK and guns were essentially banned from the public. Only one mass shooting in the 22 years since, and none at a school. Amazingly without guns we haven't fallen foul to an oppressive tyrannical regime either!

America has the same problem with healthcare as well. Money > Human Life.


----------



## AlternateDemise (Jul 11, 2015)

The Reaper said:


> I agree why the fuck do they let them spend decades on death row, once he's been sentence execute the mother fucker in the court room for all i care.


Fuck that. That would be letting him have the easy way out. Throw his ass in jail for the rest of his life where he belongs and let him endure all the misery and pain that would be headed his way.


----------



## UniversalGleam (Jan 30, 2017)

its always interesting to see people try to justify owning a fully automatic rifle with laser scopes and extended magazines for "self defence" or "hunting", you obviously arnt a very good hunter if you need that hardware and most people probably just have it to shoot old fridges on a Saturday afternoon.

lets face it, there is no justification for it.

If you need to have guns then at least put a limited on types that for example can only hold two bullets at a time or whatever then at least these nutters cant mow people down in seconds.


----------



## Vic Capri (Jun 7, 2006)

greasykid1 said:


> I'd agree, but this "right" is based upon a blatant and purposeful misinterpretation of the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> The 2nd Amendment guarantees the people that the government protect them with an armed, "well regulated militia".
> 
> ...


Fair enough.

- Vic


----------



## Genesis 1.0 (Oct 31, 2008)

Headliner said:


> @Genesis 1.0 let's have a one on one discussion pal. I find it funny that nobody here is talking about how the shooter is linked to white supremacist groups. If this was a Muslim, your usual suspects would be in here like white on rice to demonize Muslims and this thread would be a million pages by now full of bullshit. A similar demonization would happen if the shooter was a hispanic illegal immigrant.
> 
> White extremism is the biggest terrorist threat to america, but nah it ain't terrorism when white folks do it. Ain't no threads when they commit violent hate crimes but let's pop shit about Chicago, Baltimore, etc. These white suspects just got a mental illness and we suppose to feel bad. The black, hispanic and Muslim suspects are barbaric animals. Fuck outta here.


While I would be ecstatic to converse on the glaring double standards by the usual suspects, I find it to be beneath you & I considering the recent nature of the tragedy. My mental, emotional, & spiritual energies are focused entirely with the victims & the families of those affected. Stooping to their subterranean level of reasoning, & I use that term loosely, would be a disservice to everyone involved.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

ForYourOwnGood said:


> But I maintain that an armed populace is too much power to invest in ordinary people. There must always be a hierarchy, that's how society works. It's a covenant of sorts, with obedience owed by the people and protection owed by the state.
> America, though, was founded on principles of individual enterprise. Which is both the source of its strength, and the root cause of its social instability.


We have a hierarchy in the US even with an armed populace so I'm not sure what you're talking about here. 



RavishingRickRules said:


> The best reason, saving lives. The statistics are on the side of gun control, that's why the rest of the Western world who don't feel ANY Tyranny don't suffer from a ridiculous murder rate, masses of school shootings and police killings. Simples.


We care more about liberty here. It's an insurmountable cultural difference between Americans and Europeans.


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

CamillePunk said:


> We have a hierarchy in the US even with an armed populace so I'm not sure what you're talking about here.
> 
> We care more about liberty here. It's an insurmountable cultural difference between Americans and Europeans.


Cool, pretty word. Stop sugar coating it though, you care more about the right to carry a lethal weapon than the safety and well being of your own people. It's fine if that's how you want to be, but quit acting like it gives you a moral high ground. 18 school shootings in 6 weeks. We have just as much freedom as you do, we just don't murder each other wholesale. Enjoy the blood bathed liberty. Sad.



Reap said:


> At the very least, I would like to see all these "responsible gun owners" that I've heard about GO AND PATROL THE FUCKING SCHOOLS WITH THEIR DOZENS OF GUNS.
> 
> Go and DO SOMETHING you people. You have the guns. VOLUNTEER AT THOSE SCHOOLS! Form volunteer groups. Protect the schools instead of whining about "people taking away your guns" on Twitter! Show us why you deserve to have these guns.


I've always thought this. Why is it in all of these massacres that these defensive guns never come into play? It's always the police, never a concerned citizen. Seems pretty clear to me, the "defence" argument is as paper thin as the "hunting" and "protect against tyranny" arguments. The government does a damn sight better job of protecting us here than the private citizens out there do protecting America. That's why we're not getting shot up wholesale, despite criminals having guns. Interesting phenomena :cena


----------



## Mango13 (Aug 22, 2016)

RavishingRickRules said:


> I've always thought this. Why is it in all of these massacres that these defensive guns never come into play? It's always the police, never a concerned citizen. Seems pretty clear to me, the "defence" argument is as paper thin as the "hunting" and "protect against tyranny" arguments. The government does a damn sight better job of protecting us here than the private citizens out there do protecting America. That's why we're not getting shot up wholesale, despite criminals having guns. Interesting phenomena :cena


The shooter of the Texas shooting was shot and chased down by a citizen. 

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/11/0...ood-guy-with-gun-takes-down-mass-shooter.html


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

Mango13 said:


> The shooter of the Texas shooting was shot and chased down by a citizen.
> 
> http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/11/0...ood-guy-with-gun-takes-down-mass-shooter.html


One in how many? That one didn't even get reported out here I don't think, hard to keep track with the sheer volume of these attacks in the USA.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

RavishingRickRules said:


> Cool, pretty word. Stop sugar coating it though, you care more about the right to carry a lethal weapon than the safety and well being of your own people. It's fine if that's how you want to be, but quit acting like it gives you a moral high ground. 18 school shootings in 6 weeks. We have just as much freedom as you do, we just don't murder each other wholesale. Enjoy the blood bathed liberty. Sad.
> 
> 
> 
> I've always thought this. Why is it in all of these massacres that these defensive guns never come into play? It's always the police, never a concerned citizen. Seems pretty clear to me, the "defence" argument is as paper thin as the "hunting" and "protect against tyranny" arguments. The government does a damn sight better job of protecting us here than the private citizens out there do protecting America. That's why we're not getting shot up wholesale, despite criminals having guns. Interesting phenomena :cena


They tried to do it after the recruitment center shootings, the government told them to go home.


----------



## DesolationRow (Oct 11, 2009)

Another massacre and another case in which the Federal Bureau of Investigation appears to not only not act upon being tipped about the suspect (at least in San Bernardino they interviewed the couple twice months before the killings and in Orlando likewise with the Pulse nightclub shooter) but since the shooting in Parkland the FBI has been insisting that they simply could not identify "Nikolas Cruz" on the infamous YouTube comment thread that has been talked about so much in the last 48 hours.

Yesterday morning's briefing on the shooting saw the local FBI chief refer to the YouTube threat shooter Nikolas Cruz made online in September 2017. According to a rather wide array of sources both in and outside of Parkland, Cruz, the suspect in the massacre, was allegedly reported to the Bureau five months ago after he left a disturbing comment on a bail bondsman's YouTube channel in which he said that was going to be a "professional school shooter." 

All of this is at least moderately troubling, but the genuine kicker is the evident dishonesty at play: when FBI chief Robert F. Lasky was rightly asked about the YouTube comment made by the suspect by reporters. Lasky replied,



> We do not know if it was the same person. We, through our database checks, we could not positively identify him. We're going back. We're scrubbing the information. We're looking at it again. I am not willing to say at this time that it was the same person.


This is at the very least remarkably curious. Nikolas Cruz used his real name on YouTube and the threat was made almost half a year ago. The FBI was notified about it according to their own records. Cruz also used his real name, shielding practically nothing, on Instagram. It was on Instagram that Cruz loaded numerous photographs of himself wearing a mask and holding guns. His Instagram goes back to 2015 and was thematically of a piece. Again, the FBI is said to have studied this but FBI chief Lasky's comments insist that the Bureau remains unsure of whether or not the Cruz apprehended Wednesday is the same person as the one confirmed through the long trail left online. An astonishing development. Either deceit and duplicity are afoot or the FBI looks like the best-funded and most powerful iteration of the Keystone Cops. Neither option is a pleasant one.


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

Reap said:


> They tried to do it after the recruitment center shootings, the government told them to go home.


Pretty much flat out stating that the guns aren't to be used for defending citizens then? It's all just stupid. People can still have guns with gun control, plenty of people here have them. The difference is that when the guns and their use are better controlled the number of deaths dramatically decreases, as all the statistics show. If they're already not being used for defensive purposes then there's no need for carrying loaded weapons around. You can still have them for hunting and shooting ranges and being responsible whilst enjoying shooting things that aren't people, just like you can in the UK and Canada. It's just so damn ridiculous.


----------



## Vic Capri (Jun 7, 2006)

https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-statement-on-the-shooting-in-parkland-florida

More corruption in the FBI. They allowed those kids to die.

- Vic


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Mango13 said:


> The shooter of the Texas shooting was shot and chased down by a citizen.
> 
> http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/11/0...ood-guy-with-gun-takes-down-mass-shooter.html


It didn't prevent the shooting from shooting up the church did it.


----------



## Mango13 (Aug 22, 2016)

birthday_massacre said:


> It didn't prevent the shooting from shooting up the church did it.


Did I say it did? My reply was to his statement



> I've always thought this. Why is it in all of these massacres that these defensive guns never come into play? It's always the police, never a concerned citizen


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Mango13 said:


> Did I say it did? My reply was to his statement


And again the "concerned citizen" did not stop the shooting.

The answer is not arming more "concerned citizen", its having less guns out there


----------



## Mango13 (Aug 22, 2016)

birthday_massacre said:


> And again the "concerned citizen" did not stop the shooting.



And Again I never said it did. 

Here is a real question for you (assuming you live in the US) You are so against people having guns and wanting stricter gun control why aren't you finding people who share the same views as you do and writing/calling your political leaders and urging them to do something about it? why does your concern for gun control only come up when a tragedy happens? surely if you feel this strongly you would be campaigning for gun control/banning even when a tragedy hasn't occurred.

Try not to deflect and avoid answering the question.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

Mango13 said:


> And Again I never said it did.
> 
> Here is a real question for you (assuming you live in the US) You are so against people having guns and wanting stricter gun control why aren't you finding people who share the same views as you do and writing/calling your political leaders and urging them to do something about it? why does your concern for gun control only come up when a tragedy happens? surely if you feel this strongly you would be campaigning for gun control/banning even when a tragedy hasn't occurred.


If 20 dead kids in Sandy hook didn't change anything I don't think a wrestling forum member is going to achieve much...

Its been how long since a guy took a bumper stock and a gun and killed 50 people, everyone said bumpers were bad, yet nothing changed.

Licensed gun sales are routinely bypassed by loopholes where a person can buy guns privately, people said this needs changing, yet nothing changed.

Nothing ever changes.


----------



## Mango13 (Aug 22, 2016)

draykorinee said:


> If 20 dead kids in Sandy hook didn't change anything I don't think a wrestling forum member is going to achieve much...
> 
> Its been how long since a guy took a bumper stock and a gun and killed 50 people, everyone said bumpers were bad, yet nothing changed.
> 
> Nothing changes.



So because your voice may not be heard you should just sit back on your beliefs and do nothing about it? Change isn't easy and it doesn't happen over night. Change also doesn't happen without people pushing for it.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

RavishingRickRules said:


> Pretty much flat out stating that the guns aren't to be used for defending citizens then? It's all just stupid. People can still have guns with gun control, plenty of people here have them. The difference is that when the guns and their use are better controlled the number of deaths dramatically decreases, as all the statistics show. If they're already not being used for defensive purposes then there's no need for carrying loaded weapons around. You can still have them for hunting and shooting ranges and being responsible whilst enjoying shooting things that aren't people, just like you can in the UK and Canada. It's just so damn ridiculous.


No the government just gets in the way. Just like it does when concerned citizens try to feed the homeless.

The government refuses to provide protection and tells people not to provide it either and then acts like people having guns is the cause of the problems when they're the ones who are too incompetent to do anything except scratch their asses --- but for that too they need 150k+ a year stolen from everyone to do that. When they can award 156 million dollar contracts to cunts who can't do shit and then act like they can't provide armed security guards at every school and tell everyone that they can't even go there with their own guns then the government is NOTHING MORE THAN A HINDRANCE ITSELF. And yet people think that giving it MORE POWER is the solution? 

_*People *_*deserve *the leaders they get because *they're *the ones continuing to vote them in year after after year after year. 

The government can fuck off but people who fail to recognize that the government is a pile of dog dung that does nothing deserve that kind of life --- BUT they drag everyone of us that knows that the government is a pile of dog dung into their shitholes with them. 

Enough is enough of this garbage.


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

Reap said:


> No the government just gets in the way. Just like it does when concerned citizens try to feed the homeless.
> 
> The government refuses to provide protection and tells people not to provide it either and then acts like people having guns is the cause of the problems when they're the ones who are too incompetent to do anything except scratch their asses --- but for that too they need 150k+ a year stolen from everyone to do that. When they can award 156 million dollar contracts to cunts who can't do shit and then act like they can't provide armed security guards at every school and tell everyone that they can't even go there with their own guns then the government is NOTHING MORE THAN A HINDRANCE ITSELF. And yet people think that giving it MORE POWER is the solution?
> 
> ...


That's your government. Mine does a fine job, no school shootings, no police killing unarmed men, no need for people to be carrying lethal weapons. It's rather enjoyable.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

RavishingRickRules said:


> That's your government. Mine does a fine job, no school shootings, no police killing unarmed men, no need for people to be carrying lethal weapons. It's rather enjoyable.


Tell that to the hundreds that have been butchered by bombs, cars and terrorists over the last 30-40 years. You're trying to tell me that you're living in some sort of Eden less than a year after little girls were butchered at a concert? You're trying to tell me that you live in Eden less than a year after it was outed that your government tried to HIDE the fact that there have been mass numbers of little girls raped by grooming gangs? Are you serious? You have a massive acid attack problem, a growing honor killing problem, thousands upon thousands of radicalized british youth etc etc, but yeah, it's EDEN. 

I respect your nationalism, but you're kind of blind to the shit that goes on in your country because you like to come in these threads to downplay UK problems because downplaying is something you guys need to do in order to be at peace with your local problems. 

Every nationalist does that. It's ok.


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

The thing that pisses me off the most is that the fucking FBI was told that this was going to happen and did nothing! And this isn't even the first time that this has happened.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

Mango13 said:


> So because your voice may not be heard you should just sit back on your beliefs and do nothing about it? Change isn't easy and it doesn't happen over night. Change also doesn't happen without people pushing for it.


People have pushed for it. The NRA pushes back harder.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

draykorinee said:


> People have pushed for it. The NRA pushes back harder.


The NRA has even less lobbying power than Planned Parenthood and it's a much smaller evil in western society. 

Any law that comes up with regards to restriction of firearm use will ALWAYS be shot down by the Supreme Court so the NRA is just another organization that people falsely associate because it's easy to have mustache twirling comic book villains because that's what the last two generations of children have been raised on. They live in a fairy tale world where there are superheroes and supervillains. 

The government needs to ensure the safety of the children like it does its own fucking lackeys. 

The real issue however is that the taxpayer's life is worth less than the tax-stealer's life just as the babies life is worth less than the mother's. Humans evaluate worth of life based on importance to society and we established a long time ago that children are worth the least. We start with the process of assuming that they are the parents' property and aren't given full rights till they're 16-18 and some of that filters down into how little we care about them after they leave our homes --- as a society we've failed children and the government has always led the charge.


----------



## Arya Dark (Sep 8, 2006)

*Y'all know how much I love guns and I'd be perfectly fine getting ride of them all. Let's go back to swords and daggers and bows. I'd be perfectly content with that.*


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

Reap said:


> The NRA has even less lobbying power than Planned Parenthood and it's a much smaller evil in western society.
> 
> Any law that comes up with regards to restriction of firearm use will ALWAYS be shot down by the Supreme Court so the NRA is just another organization that people falsely associate because it's easy to have mustache twirling comic book villains because that's what the last two generations of children have been raised on. They live in a fairy tale world where there are superheroes and supervillains.
> 
> ...


I'm sure the millions spent helping elect supreme court members has no influence on the supreme court members...


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

draykorinee said:


> I'm sure the millions spent helping elect supreme court members has no influence on the supreme court members...


Lol. You can fill up the supreme court with antigun advocates and they still can't do anything about gun ownership.


----------



## Eva MaRIHyse (Jun 20, 2014)

birthday_massacre said:


> Fun fact, there have been 18 school shootings in the US this year alone, in the rest of the world there has only been 18 total in 20 years.
> 
> *And I see the same people in these threads over and over again defending guns and these types of shootings keep happening over and over again.*
> 
> The def. of insanity..... yeah you know the rest


On that note, after shootings like this there’s always talk from those people who value gun ownership above human life that those who want stricter gun control, or more effort into mental health are pushing an agenda. But holy crap it’s amazing how quickly the gun nuts are jumping up and down screaming about “you ain’t taking my guns”. And trying to shift focus to trucks being used to kill. Those people make it clear that sadly nothing will ever change in America, this issue will never go away.

Reading some of the stories on this shooting and seeing some of the tweets from kids who were there hiding for their life it’s tragic. They’re all calling for gun control, yet fat politicians who have no idea what it was like or gun obsessed freaks won’t allow any change to protect these kids in the future. That’s the thing, kids are being slaughtered at school because adults who have power won’t do anything to help them.


----------



## Arya Dark (Sep 8, 2006)

*Things can change. We just gotta elect the proper people.*


----------



## Lady Eastwood (Jul 10, 2006)

FITZ said:


> The NRA get a lot of money from gun companies. But they have 5 million members. And there are a lot of people in the United States support a good percentage of their message. They are funded by big money but they have a lot of support. I have family members who make up a few of those 5 million people. And I have more family members that are gun owners and aren't members but still support them.


For me personally, I don't have a problem with guns. I like shotguns LOL, I think there are some nice guns out there.

I am also aware of the fact that there are more responsible gun owners than not. Unfortunately, it only takes a few morons to ruin it for everyone else.

I used to use the 'guns don't kill people, people kill people' argument, and, I still go by that because a responsible human being can own a gun and not mishandle it at all, but, really, no regular civilian needs to have a gun, period. Every country where it's illegal doesn't have a problem living without guns being legal. It's not a necessity like America makes it out to be. I have family members that have the mindset that they need a gun to protect themselves, and, I think that is basically the mindset of many Americans because that is what has been fed to the public and guns have been such a regular part of life that people think they can't cope without it.

Americans have proven that we have too many people with mental issues and guns are so easily accessible that they often fall in to the wrong hands and lives get lost because of it. There is no reason for someone to walk in to a school or a job or a mall and randomly start blowing people away because they are mad or because they saw something on TV and want to do it, that is just fucked up, but, mental issues are just talked about, nothing much is ever done about it.

Mental illness is an epidemic and guns are being used as the release.


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

DoctorWhosawhatsit said:


> A lot of what you said about the NRA's marketing, brainwashing, and conning people is true but the NRA do have some VERY deep pockets. The brilliant part of what they do is instead of donating directly to candidates they'll work with the candidate in an unofficial capacity by running ads against their opponent, which isn't considered a donation or cutback or bribe or whatever you want to call it.
> 
> This article http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/oct/11/counting-up-how-much-nra-spends/ goes much more in depth about NRA spending but to bottom line it since 1998 the NRA have spent, at least, 203.2 million dollars on political activities, over $55 million of which was spent in 2016 and over $30 million of which was spent in 2014.
> 
> That might not be enough to basically buy a political party like the Koch brothers and Rupert Murdoch have, but it's more than enough to sway, influence, or flat out kill political action.


What do you think is the amount other lobbying groups spent on similar 'unofficial' messaging as well? They aren't even in the same league. They just hit on guns = freedom a few decades ago that stuck and made it harder to enforce gun regulations. Not a coincidence other industry started following similar messaging of freedom of choice > all. The difference is NRA can offer an alternative messaging to those that are less risk adverse and desire more security. Guns = security too! What are big pharma and tobacco industry going to say to make their products be associated with security as well that ordinary folks will buy into? :lol


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

Honestly you could ban all guns and it what be decades before you see a real difference if ever.

Cartels running guns is big business and we're right next door to a gun and drug smuggling nation. 

I know a lot of people will say "But Sally now it won't be as easy to get a gun!" Well that depends where you live, because drugs are illegal yet most people can get their hands on them or find sellers rather easily.

Besides I could see the biggest gun manufacturers moving to South America and those said guns magically finding themselves back into rotation here.

Obviously something needs to change but looking at the bigger picture I'm not sure what could be done to actually make a real change. How's our war on everything we deem bad doing?


----------



## 2 Ton 21 (Dec 28, 2011)

Is it 1998?



> *Kentucky governor blames violent video games, movies, not guns for school shootings*
> 
> COVINGTON, Ky. — It's not the guns, it's the video games.
> 
> ...


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

2 Ton 21 said:


> Is it 1998?


Oh for fucks sake.


----------



## themuel1 (Feb 19, 2004)

Deja Vu. Another one of these and a load of innocent kids and teachers dead. Lives ended viciously, families torn apart and those that survived scared for life. 

The Canadians and the Swiss don't have these problems. They have a lot of guns in both countries....They have the same mental health issues as the rest of the Western world, including the USA. 

Stricter gun laws may prevent some shootings but there is a much bigger set of issues with regard to attitude/culture/personal responsibility with guns in the USA and a lot of people just don't want to hear it. Those issues are much harder to deal with.

Violent video games....? Have they blamed Marilyn Manson music yet too?


----------



## squarebox (Nov 6, 2015)

themuel1 said:


> The Canadians and the Swiss don't have these problems. They have a lot of guns in both countries....They have the same mental health issues as the rest of the Western world, including the USA.


Add us (Australia to the list). Following the Martin Bryant massacre in 1996, we were smart enough to know that something needed to be done to try to prevent such tragedies from happening in future:


*"Following the spree, the Prime Minister of Australia, John Howard, introduced strict gun control laws within Australia and formulated the National Firearms Programme Implementation Act 1996, restricting the private ownership of semi-automatic rifles, semi-automatic shotguns and pump-action shotguns as well as introducing uniform firearms licensing. It was implemented with bipartisan support by the Commonwealth, states and territories."*

It amazes me how the USA just....well....don't seem to care?


----------



## themuel1 (Feb 19, 2004)

squarebox said:


> Add us (Australia to the list). Following the Martin Bryant massacre in 1996, we were smart enough to know that something needed to be done to try to prevent such tragedies from happening in future:
> 
> 
> *"Following the spree, the Prime Minister of Australia, John Howard, introduced strict gun control laws within Australia and formulated the National Firearms Programme Implementation Act 1996, restricting the private ownership of semi-automatic rifles, semi-automatic shotguns and pump-action shotguns as well as introducing uniform firearms licensing. It was implemented with bipartisan support by the Commonwealth, states and territories."*
> ...


NRA simply has to much influence, financially and politically, backed by members that seem to love their guns way too much. The way some people talk about them, you'd think they were their kids.


----------



## Mister Abigail (May 22, 2014)

squarebox said:


> It amazes me how the USA just....well....don't seem to care?


As I've said before, the majority of Americans are extremists. You say:

_"Maybe start by limiting-"_

They see:
*
"BAN EVERYTHING"*


.....so whaddaya do?


----------



## MoltenSquid (Jan 18, 2018)

I will never understand why everyone in America is allowed to buy and hold weapons. I've heard that in the US there are more weapons than people...that's just crazy. Why don't they just evolve like most of the other developed countries? Here in Italy you have to go through a lot of stuff before you're allowed to buy a weapon and believe me, if there is the chance you might become a psycho, they won't allow you to buy one.


----------



## Jersey (Jun 24, 2014)

*X-Pac Loses a Relative in Florida School Shooting*



> WWE legend Sean "X-Pac" Waltman revealed on Twitter that one of the victims of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in Parkland, Florida was a relative of his.




__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/964289202950234112%2Fphoto%2F1

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/964293130030731264
So sad to hear


----------



## anirioc (Jul 29, 2015)

*Re: X-Pac Loses a Relative in Florida School Shooting*

Stupid craxy world we live in..This society is falling apart.


----------



## yeahright2 (Feb 11, 2011)

*Re: X-Pac Loses a Relative in Florida School Shooting*

...And they STILL doesn´t want to regulate acces to firearms..


----------



## Empress (Jun 24, 2014)

*Re: X-Pac Loses a Relative in Florida School Shooting*

I'm sorry for his loss. I don't even know what to say at this point that hasn't already been said. My heart goes out to these families.


----------



## DesoloutionRow (May 18, 2014)

*Re: X-Pac Loses a Relative in Florida School Shooting*

That's fucked up. I hope he doesn't relapse into hard drugs again because of it.


----------



## JeffHardyRules9000 (Oct 14, 2009)

*Re: X-Pac Loses a Relative in Florida School Shooting*



yeahright2 said:


> ...And they STILL doesn´t want to regulate acces to firearms..


Stop trying to politicize this... If guns were banned it would only change the how, not the why. Plus, if guns are banned, criminals would still get a hold of them through the black market. It would just restrict access to them for law abiding citizens. It's disgusting how banning guns becomes a political issue every single time a mentally ill person gets a hold of one when so many other factors were at play in this tragedy.


----------



## Buster Cannon (Jul 7, 2017)

*Re: X-Pac Loses a Relative in Florida School Shooting*

So painful...


----------



## Ratedr4life (Dec 18, 2008)

*Re: X-Pac Loses a Relative in Florida School Shooting*



JeffHardyRules9000 said:


> Stop trying to politicize this... If guns were banned it would only change the how, not the why. Plus, if guns are banned, criminals would still get a hold of them through the black market. It would just restrict access to them for law abiding citizens. It's disgusting how banning guns becomes a political issue every single time a mentally ill person gets a hold of one when so many other factors were at play in this tragedy.


Gun control is a political topic, only a coward would use a tragedy like this to hide behind the discussion. You don't have to listen to me, listen to the survivors, the ones that barley made it out, they want gun control. They want these weapons out of the hands of law abiding citizens and the mentally ill.

You're right, you can get these weapons on the black market if they were banned, but the number of them out there would be dramatically less if there were criminal charges if you are found, selling, buying or in possession of one. By your logic we should make heroin and all other hard drugs legal.

These shootings happen because people like you don't want to talk about it. It's either too soon to talk about it so you offer your worthless "thoughts and prayers" or after it's out of he headlines and the news cycles, the problem isn't guns, it's mental health. Then the your republican government cuts mental health aid. 

You are part of the problem, not the solution. Not one person who supports regular everyday citizens owning weapons of mass destruction can substantiate with any logical argument other than "FUCK YOU I LIKE MY GUNS". It's not about self-protection, it's not about hunting for food, it's about you thinking you're cool because you own one.

Would you be okay with me owning grenade launchers, ballistic missiles and other weapons only available to the army? I'm sure I can pass any mental health test administered to me.

I hope you don't have children who have to go to school with the fear in their hearts that they might not make it back home. I hope you never have to be that parent waiting outside a school, a movie theater, a church, an amusement park, waiting on word if their child or loved one has died.

As for X-Pac, I hope he stays strong for himself and his family. No one should ever have to go through this, or be subjected to a horrific death like this.


----------



## Interceptor88 (May 5, 2010)

If Americans care about_ liberty _why do they worry so much about Iran or North Korea having mass destruction weapons? You think it's up to every individual to decide if they want to kill a lot of people or not. You think every individual has the right to own murdering tools and it's their responsability to not use them to kill people. Shouldn't other countries have that right too? After all they are creating them for defense, right? They have the right to decide if they want to nuke New York or not just like every maniac has the right to take a rifle and kill whoever he wants until he's put down. 

I don't know if you can see the comparison.


----------



## Vyer (May 12, 2013)

*Re: X-Pac Loses a Relative in Florida School Shooting*

I'm sorry to hear that. My condolence to him and all that were affected.


----------



## UniversalGleam (Jan 30, 2017)

*Re: X-Pac Loses a Relative in Florida School Shooting*

simply no comfort for people in these circumstances, a person taken away at the start of their life for no reason in a horrific way.

couldnt even imagine the pain for the parents, couldnt imagine a way for them to get over it.

Ive made my views on gun control in the past, I simply dont see any circumstance in which a civilian needs to own automatic or high powered weapons, simply saying "they would get hold of them anyway" doesnt cut it for me, you only ever see this in america on a regular basis so there is clearly something wrong, so thats all I will say on that.


----------



## Smarkout (Apr 9, 2015)

I work at a public school and the talk here (in the liberal state of NY) is we wanted armed security in our schools. If I am Trump it is time to "make a deal" with the Dems. Give them some gun control and you get armed guards in schools as well. There was ONE cop in this school full of 3,000 people. Would you have one cop police a small town of 3,000 people? 

Also, the FBI fucked this one up big time. 

Here would be a common sense gun law to stop this:

1.) Metal Detectors installed at every entrance and exit of schools. 

2.) There is only one place where you can enter and exit the building unless a principal unlocks all the doors. 

3.) Minimum two armed guards in every school. This should start at the elementary level and as the schools get larger you add more armed guards. 

4.) Treat purchasing a gun as getting your drivers license, you need more regulation and make them a little more difficult to get. I can have a gun in no time. 

5.) Make no mistake, this kid was going to try to kill people regardless, but this was preventable. 

Democrats AND Republicans need to come together and make some common sense gun laws here. Both sides have valid points and they need to be addressed. I understand you all will be hearing these poor children from the school be taken advantage of by the media and say no more guns. Just know, that all of the public school employees I have spoken to would like some sort of protection inside the schools. 

This shouldn't be a Republican or Democratic issue, it is sickening.


----------



## RiverFenix (Dec 10, 2011)

*Re: X-Pac Loses a Relative in Florida School Shooting*

Wouldn't his mother's niece be his cousin?


----------



## FITZ (May 8, 2007)

squarebox said:


> Add us (Australia to the list). Following the Martin Bryant massacre in 1996, we were smart enough to know that something needed to be done to try to prevent such tragedies from happening in future:
> 
> 
> *"Following the spree, the Prime Minister of Australia, John Howard, introduced strict gun control laws within Australia and formulated the National Firearms Programme Implementation Act 1996, restricting the private ownership of semi-automatic rifles, semi-automatic shotguns and pump-action shotguns as well as introducing uniform firearms licensing. It was implemented with bipartisan support by the Commonwealth, states and territories."*
> ...


The same law that Australia passed would be a civil war in the US.


----------



## southrnbygrace (Jun 14, 2014)

*Re: X-Pac Loses a Relative in Florida School Shooting*

So much evil in the world that creates so much tragedy. My prayers go out to all the families of the wounded and slain.


----------



## Chris JeriG.O.A.T (Jun 17, 2014)

*Re: X-Pac Loses a Relative in Florida School Shooting*



JeffHardyRules9000 said:


> Stop trying to politicize this... If guns were banned it would only change the how, not the why. Plus, if guns are banned, criminals would still get a hold of them through the black market. It would just restrict access to them for law abiding citizens. It's disgusting how banning guns becomes a political issue every single time a mentally ill person gets a hold of one when so many other factors were at play in this tragedy.


You realize the countries with serious gun control have almost no gun violence? I'm sure if the UK, Japan et al can keep black market guns out of their countries we could do it too.


----------



## BoFreakinDallas (Jul 8, 2017)

Miss Sally said:


> Honestly you could ban all guns and it what be decades before you see a real difference if ever.
> 
> Cartels running guns is big business and we're right next door to a gun and drug smuggling nation.
> 
> ...




Most of these mass shooters are socially awkward weido's with mental problems. When things are illegal the group of people aside from criminals who can acquire things on the black market the easiest are the most socially outgoing. It would be much harder for the Nicolas Cruz's and James Holmes of the world if they want to buy a gram of cocaine then their more socially outgoing peers could,you make it illegal for people with mental problems to purchase weapons it will stop many of them from getting weapons.


----------



## Ratedr4life (Dec 18, 2008)

Smarkout said:


> I work at a public school and the talk here (in the liberal state of NY) is we wanted armed security in our schools. If I am Trump it is time to "make a deal" with the Dems. Give them some gun control and you get armed guards in schools as well. There was ONE cop in this school full of 3,000 people. Would you have one cop police a small town of 3,000 people?
> 
> Also, the FBI fucked this one up big time.
> 
> ...


I agree with some of what you said. But more guns, metal detectors, armed security isn't the answer to the root of the problem, it's a cop out. To turn Schools, Malls, Arenas into prisons where everyone is always on alert is backwards logic.

That's like if Ford found a defect with their vehicles resulting in them flipping while turning, instead of recalling their vehicles they tell the public to go out and pay money out of their own pocket to install roll cages.

The ONLY solution is a weapons ban. Ban of manufacturing, ban of sale, ban of ownership. That's it. There is no other solution that is sensible. I've been to the US multiple times, New York City, Las Vegas, Miami, Dallas, Detroit, Buffalo, I've never felt unsafe or in need of a gun, so I don't get this "I need a gun to protect myself" mentality.


----------



## Ratedr4life (Dec 18, 2008)

BoFreakinDallas said:


> Most of these mass shooters are socially awkward weido's with mental problems. When things are illegal the group of people aside from criminals who can acquire things on the black market the easiest are the most socially outgoing. It would be much harder for the Nicolas Cruz's and James Holmes of the world if they want to buy a gram of cocaine then their more socially outgoing peers could,you make it illegal for people with mental problems to purchase weapons it will stop many of them from getting weapons.


Exactly, the majority of gun owners today wouldn't dare dream of walking into the places where they would need to purchase guns if they were banned. There's a better chance of them being shot themselves than walking out with a gun.


----------



## Illogical (Sep 28, 2017)

*Re: X-Pac Loses a Relative in Florida School Shooting*



DetroitRiverPhx said:


> Wouldn't his mother's niece be his cousin?


It wasn't his mother's niece . It was the daughter of his cousin.


----------



## 2 Ton 21 (Dec 28, 2011)

The thing is even if we shut down gun manufacturers today, there are 357 million guns in the U.S. I just don't see how you conceivably seize them.

After the Port Arthur massacre, Australia bought and destroyed more than 600,000 civilian-owned firearms. It cost half a billion dollars and was funded by raising taxes. That's half a billion dollars from raised taxes to get .16% of the guns in America off the streets of Australia. I don't see that happening here.

I'm not saying do nothing. I just don't know what would work. You'd have to have a huge amount of people on one side completely change their minds on something they are very hard line on. I don't see that happening.


----------



## Ratedr4life (Dec 18, 2008)

2 Ton 21 said:


> The thing is even if we shut down gun manufacturers today, there are 357 million guns in the U.S. I just don't see how you conceivably seize them.
> 
> After the Port Arthur massacre, Australia bought and destroyed more than 600,000 civilian-owned firearms. It cost half a billion dollars and was funded by raising taxes. That's half a billion dollars from raised taxes to get .16% of the guns in America off the streets of Australia. I don't see that happening here.
> 
> I'm not saying do nothing. I just don't know what would work. You'd have to have a huge amount of people on one side completely change their minds on something they are very hard line on. I don't see that happening.


You could start with stopping production of more weapons?


----------



## DudeLove669 (Oct 20, 2013)

*Re: X-Pac Loses a Relative in Florida School Shooting*



Chris JeriG.O.A.T said:


> You realize the countries with serious gun control have almost no gun violence? I'm sure if the UK, Japan et al can keep black market guns out of their countries we could do it too.


Those are also countries that haven't had guns integrated into the countries culture since it's inception. You can't simply remove guns from the USA. I don't understand how people don't get this. It's not as simple as passing a law and then all guns are magically gone and hard to find.


----------



## 2 Ton 21 (Dec 28, 2011)

Ratedr4life said:


> You could start with stopping production of more weapons?


Like I said, there's more guns in this country than there are people. Even if you stop making them right now, you still have 357 million. And you have the coming years with 3D printers making it possible to make your own. Smuggled guns from other countries as well.

I think we're past the point of no return here.

Like I said I'm not saying just give up and do nothing, but I don't know what to do, that would have a real impact, that you could get the majority of people on board with.


----------



## Ratedr4life (Dec 18, 2008)

2 Ton 21 said:


> Like I said, there's more guns in this country than there are people. Even if you stop making them right now, you still have 357 million. And you have the coming years with 3D printers making it possible to make your own. Smuggled guns from other countries as well.
> 
> I think we're past the point of no return here.
> 
> Like I said I'm not saying just give up and do nothing, but I don't know what to do, that would have a real impact, that you could get the majority of people on board with.


If you stop the sale of firearms legally you're going to have an entire generation of gun owners disappear. They may purchase them on the black market, but like illegal substances the risk may outweigh the reward and they may not. Would you purchase a gun if you had to go into a shady neighborhood where the chances of you being robbed of your money is higher than you walking away with a gun?

This wouldn't be a 1 day solution, this would be the start of a solution that we may not see the full effects of for 10-15 years. But imagine stopping these mass murder shootings because sick fucks like the one in Parkland couldn't get his hands on a gun.


----------



## 2 Ton 21 (Dec 28, 2011)

Ratedr4life said:


> If you stop the sale of firearms legally you're going to have an entire generation of gun owners disappear. They may purchase them on the black market, but like illegal substances the risk may outweigh the reward and they may not. Would you purchase a gun if you had to go into a shady neighborhood where the chances of you being robbed of your money is higher than you walking away with a gun?
> 
> This wouldn't be a 1 day solution, this would be the start of a solution that we may not see the full effects of for 10-15 years. But imagine stopping these mass murder shootings because sick fucks like the one in Parkland couldn't get his hands on a gun.


Maybe you're right. Maybe long term it could work. I don't know. I do think a sick fuck like the one in Parkland would venture into a shady neighborhood to buy an illegal gun. Also, they might not only be sold in shady neighborhoods. Not everyone that buys illegal weed goes to the hood.


----------



## Headliner (Jun 24, 2004)

Genesis 1.0 said:


> While I would be ecstatic to converse on the glaring double standards by the usual suspects, I find it to be beneath you & I considering the recent nature of the tragedy. My mental, emotional, & spiritual energies are focused entirely with the victims & the families of those affected. Stooping to their subterranean level of reasoning, & I use that term loosely, would be a disservice to everyone involved.


https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/16/us/exclusive-school-shooter-instagram-group/index.html

But his mental illness. But his momma dying.


----------



## Buffy The Vampire Slayer (May 31, 2011)

*Re: X-Pac Loses a Relative in Florida School Shooting*

*My condolences goes out to X-Pac's entire family and other families in my state here. Plus prayers as well.  *


----------



## Ratedr4life (Dec 18, 2008)

2 Ton 21 said:


> Maybe you're right. Maybe long term it could work. I don't know. I do think a sick fuck like the one in Parkland would venture into a shady neighborhood to buy an illegal gun. Also, they might not only be sold in shady neighborhoods. Not everyone that buys illegal weed goes to the hood.


People with poor social skills like that wouldn't feel comfortable in places like that where they stick out like a sore thumb. 

You're right, most of the black market that would rise in its aftermath wouldn't be in the ghettos, it would be in fairly middle-class neighborhoods. I'd introduce laws that would put the people who sell these assault weapons to someone who murders people behind bars as well. Selling an illegal weapon that results in death gets as much time as the crime itself.


----------



## Smarkout (Apr 9, 2015)

Ratedr4life said:


> I agree with some of what you said. But more guns, metal detectors, armed security isn't the answer to the root of the problem, it's a cop out. To turn Schools, Malls, Arenas into prisons where everyone is always on alert is backwards logic.
> 
> That's like if Ford found a defect with their vehicles resulting in them flipping while turning, instead of recalling their vehicles they tell the public to go out and pay money out of their own pocket to install roll cages.
> 
> The ONLY solution is a weapons ban. Ban of manufacturing, ban of sale, ban of ownership. That's it. There is no other solution that is sensible. I've been to the US multiple times, New York City, Las Vegas, Miami, Dallas, Detroit, Buffalo, I've never felt unsafe or in need of a gun, so I don't get this "I need a gun to protect myself" mentality.


A weapons ban is not happening, so I feel as if my solution is best. What do you think about that?


----------



## Ratedr4life (Dec 18, 2008)

Smarkout said:


> A weapons ban is not happening, so I feel as if my solution is best. What do you think about that?


I can't fathom an actual legitimate reason not to have a weapons ban.

You say it can't be done. I don't know if you're a gun owner, but can you explain it to me?

Why do Americans want to own these high-powered killing machines? You're the only country in the world with this twisted fascination with them.

Republicans are so hell bent on eliminating the rights of women to have abortions, but when actual children are dying at the hands of these guns, you turn a blind eye. Lives don't matter when there is money to be made?


----------



## EC3 • (Jul 31, 2016)

Ratedr4life said:


> Gun control is a political topic, only a coward would use a tragedy like this to hide behind the discussion. You don't have to listen to me, listen to the survivors, the ones that barley made it out, they want gun control. They want these weapons out of the hands of law abiding citizens and the mentally ill.
> 
> You're right, you can get these weapons on the black market if they were banned, but the number of them out there would be dramatically less if there were criminal charges if you are found, selling, buying or in possession of one. By your logic we should make heroin and all other hard drugs legal.
> 
> ...


Fuck off commie


----------



## Ratedr4life (Dec 18, 2008)

*Re: X-Pac Loses a Relative in Florida School Shooting*



EC3 • said:


> Fuck off commie


Suppose you're a fan of children being mowed down then.


----------



## Ratedr4life (Dec 18, 2008)

*Re: X-Pac Loses a Relative in Florida School Shooting*



DudeLove669 said:


> Those are also countries that haven't had guns integrated into the countries culture since it's inception. You can't simply remove guns from the USA. I don't understand how people don't get this. It's not as simple as passing a law and then all guns are magically gone and hard to find.


No, but if you stop the production of them and enforce strict laws about the sale/purchase of them you may phase out these killing machines. You make it more difficult for these psychos to obtain and you may very well prevent these mass shootings from happening.

There's not solution to fix this tomorrow, but maybe the next generation don't have to worry about being shot in the classroom, a movie theater, a church, a concert, etc.


----------



## Mister Abigail (May 22, 2014)

Stop talking weapons ban. Talk weapons limit first. Then stronger limit. Then stronger limit until an average teenager with a mental problem finds it hard to get a gun. 

Look, you’re never going to make it impossible to get a gun in the United States. Never. But, you can make it hard to do. That’s what other countries have PROVEN, multiple times. You can’t get rid of guns, criminals will always be able to get them through nefarious means.

What you can do is make them hard to get for average people who snap.

“But they’ll just use a car! Do you ban cars?” No. That’s stupid. Vehicular homicide happens too. That’s why people need licenses and do tests to be allowed to drive them, and get fined and arrested when they break the rules. It’s also why law enforcement are now putting barricades up around large gatherings like New Years festivities after the vehicular homicides in places like Paris. 

“They’ll use a knife or a hammer or sword!” Yes, but it’s hard to kill 20 people in 10 minutes with a hammer. This is why we don’t have many hammer massacres. Guns make it easier to kill multiple people in a short time. Easier. Ease is the problem to fix right now.

“But my rights!” Oh boo hoo. Children are being massacred. Sometimes you have to make personal sacrifices for the good of other humans. Besides, a properly implemented buy-back, testing and registration system will get the majority of guns out of the hands of whackos and normal gun enthusiasts, historians and collectors will still be able to get their weapons. You’ll just have to go through a tough registration system. Just like at the airport after the terror attacks. As usual, dickheads make it hard for everyone. 

“But the problem is mental health, not guns, a gun doesn’t kill someone, people do!” Yes, but guns make it easier. See above. Nobody is saying mental health isn’t a problem. It is, and it needs fixed too. The idiots in government decided to close a lot of hospitals and so you get an increase in the unstable being by themselves, unmonitored. Fixing that is probably harder than fixing the gun problem to be honest. Very few people would argue against more mental health care, and I’m not sure how to fix that either. It doesn’t help when authorities don’t act on reports.

Starting a mental health hotline akin to the terrorist hotline might be a way to start. Take to onus from the sick person to report themselves and have a place to report people with possible issues, and have it acted upon. 

It’s a start, but it needs to START. I don’t understand why people are so resistant.


----------



## Revillution15 (Mar 3, 2017)

You are a bastard troll TAC41

It's tragic. God speed to whom had they're lives taken. May the families become stronger and braver after this horror.


----------



## DoucheHolliday (Jan 22, 2018)

*Re: X-Pac Loses a Relative in Florida School Shooting*



Jersey said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/964289202950234112%2Fphoto%2F1
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/964293130030731264
> So sad to hear


Wow, that's horrible.


----------



## Dr. Middy (Jan 21, 2015)

There is no ONE solution that would cause a large enough impact where the threat of this type of thing will lessen. It's going to take a selection of different measures, including more research into understanding mental health and treating that more seriously, including gun control in the way of making weapons like he used harder to find, including more attention given to the background checks for said weapons so somebody with clear mental issues like this guy can't get weapons, and including the investigation into why the FBI didn't take the message that this guy was clearly troubled seriously even when students and teachers clearly were scared of him, among other things. How all of these are done is another matter entirely, some of which I honestly don't know and still don't since the last mass shooting, and the one before that.

What I do know is this should be treated as a bipartisan issue, as EVERYBODY loses in the end if nothing is done. The best we can do is at least get something done that can have some kind of impact, even if it is small, because if something like an tougher assault weapons ban, or better attention in schools given to students suffering from mental health, leads to one of those mas shootings being prevented, shouldn't that be enough?


----------



## Doc (Oct 4, 2010)

You Americans and your outdated 2nd amendment just don't get it do you?

What other country in the world has the amount of school shootings that America does? I'll wait its fine.

In 96 a madman shot up a school in Scotland and killed 16 humans. You know what our government did? Made it a hell of a lot harder to purchase and own a legal weapon. 

I find it absurd that in Americaland you can buy a gun and ammo as easy as you can buy a Big Mac meal. 

Blame mental illness or whatever all you want, you'll never cure it, but you CAN prevent angry kids getting a hold of rifles and pistols so bloody easy.

WAKE UP you arrogant people.


----------



## Michael Scofield (Sep 26, 2007)

EC3 • said:


> Fuck off commie


Commies don't kill children at schools. Sick Americans and people who support gun violence do.


----------



## FITZ (May 8, 2007)

Ratedr4life said:


> I can't fathom an actual legitimate reason not to have a weapons ban.
> 
> You say it can't be done. I don't know if you're a gun owner, but can you explain it to me?
> 
> ...


It's because of how the country is made up. 










The red makes up the counties Trump won in the election. I don't think it's crazy to say that most of those counties in red would not be happy about giving up their guns. 

Now think of how the government is made up. You have local, state, and federal. Let's assume the ban comes at the federal level. Now they have to get everyone to comply. Even in the states have Democratic majorities the local governments are going to be conservative. 

I live comfortably in a red area. Let's say the ban is in place and it's time to get the guns. I'm 100% sure the local law enforcement agencies in my area would refuse to help get guns. I know that because they've said the same thing about the NY Safe Act that only requires people to register guns. Look it up, tons of local sheriffs have said they won't enforce the law. So all of the local agencies won't help round up the guns. I live in a state with a democratic majority so in theory the governor could order the State Police to do this. The problem with that is you have under 5,000 officers in the force. 

Now let's say I lived in Texas or some other conservative state. Those state governments won't help. 

So if you have the ban you don't have enough government agencies that would enforce the law. 

So now you have not very many people trying to enforce the law. So what do you do? In New York people would not willingly register their guns. You think they are going to willingly surrender them? So you have widespread civil disobedience. Now there's the option of doing nothing, at which point you have a weapons ban in name only. The other option is to go and take the weapons by force. And when you have police going door to door rounding up guns something bad is bound to happen.


----------



## DoctorWhosawhatsit (Aug 23, 2016)

*Re: X-Pac Loses a Relative in Florida School Shooting*



JeffHardyRules9000 said:


> Stop trying to politicize this... If guns were banned it would only change the how, not the why. Plus, if guns are banned, criminals would still get a hold of them through the black market. It would just restrict access to them for law abiding citizens. It's disgusting how banning guns becomes a political issue every single time a mentally ill person gets a hold of one when so many other factors were at play in this tragedy.


Factors like getting rid of the laws that keep people with mental illness from purchasing guns? It’s also not like gun restrictions exponentially increase the price of black market arms keeping average criminals from purchasing them, oh yeah, it does. Also “stop politicizing it”? Exactly how many times does this have to happen before we’re allowed to try and stop it? And how many decades do all the other industrialized countries with gun control have to go without a shooting before Americans take a page from their book?

You’re right though many factors do play into this tragedy. Denial and compliance being chief amoung them.


----------



## DOPA (Jul 13, 2012)

@DesolationRow @Reap @Mango13 (I'll tag you seeing as you've asked a few times for people's suggestions).

Looking at this particular tragic event, I think there are two pretty obvious reasons which allowed this school shooting to occur:

* The FBI failed to take the threats made by the shooter seriously and ignored obvious signs that he was going to at least attempt a mass shooting. Not only that but after being questioned on not taking in this guy for questioning concerning his youtube comments, they claimed they couldn't tell whether the comments were really the person in question....even though the guy used his real name! It's bad enough that they failed to take his comments and threats seriously but to try and deflect responsibility in this way was absolutely hideous and disgusting.

* The weapon that was used was easily accessible through legal means. *Too easily accessible.* This makes this situation different from the Las Vegas shooting where the weapons used and stored were already subjected to very strict gun control where the existing laws were not enforced properly and did nothing to stop the shooter from causing a massacre. A lack of gun control was not the primary reason why the Las Vegas massacre happened, it was a failure by the state government to identify the shooter as someone who should not be carrying those particular weapons under the existing gun control measures and laws.

But in this situation, I think there is a strong case to be made that stricter gun control could have helped prevent this tragedy. But more importantly and concrete than that, had the FBI taken his threats more seriously and had taken him in for questioning and evaluation almost certainly this wouldn't have happened. Extremely sad all around.

As far as the overall gun control debate goes: I'm British and am in a unique position as being probably the only person from this side of the world commenting on this thread who is actually in favour of gun rights. Having said that, I can't pretend that it is a huge issue for me in British political terms (Deso already knows a few that are   ). If the gun laws here in the UK never changed I cannot say that I feel like I'd be missing out on anything. I've held a rifle maybe once or twice in my life, and never held a handgun, shotgun or semi automatic weapon. Simply put, like the vast majority of Brits, I've simply never grown up around that type of culture and therefore on a personal level I simply cannot relate to the US's gun culture. The fascination with guns is alien to me but what isn't alien to me is the right for individuals to protect themselves, their families and their property. That is the main reason why I am in favour of gun rights on principle.

As far as the gun control debate and solutions go, trying to look at this as objectively as possible, I do not think a so called "assault weapon" ban or any sort of gun ban is going to work in the United States. The situation in the US isn't even remotely close to the one in the UK or Australia for example for a couple of key reasons. First of all, the sheer volume of guns in circulation in the United States is astronomical. At 375 million, it is more than the population of the United States. That makes enforcing any type of gun ban from a logistical standpoint extremely difficult. Even if you were to install some type of gun buyback program and 50% of gun owners participated which is the most I think you could hope for and realistically I think the number would be less, then you'd still have over 130 million guns in circulation. That's more than what the UK has had in the past and I'm pretty sure it's more than what Australia has had too though if I'm wrong about that then any Aussies are free to correct me. That means in order to make a real dent, you'd have to take the guns by force and at least half the population in the US will never accept that.

Which leads me to point number 2, the gun culture in the United States. There has been real opposition to any form of gun control before it has even been implemented by a large portion of the population. That type of resistance is a lot stronger than what we experienced here in the UK. We have had and still have gun clubs and when the 1997 firearms act was passed there was some pushback but it didn't last long. Now you will find it hard pressed to find anyone that will argue that the gun laws need scaling back. The statistics when you study the trends over time since 1997 show a less rosey picture than what heavy gun control advocates will have you believe but the fact is we thankfully have not had a mass school shooting since 1996. So regardless of what the overall violent crime and murder statistics have told us since 1997, not many people will ever argue for that decision to be reversed. It's just not an issue for the average British citizen anymore. I can't say what the situation was in Australia with any real clarity but I'd imagine it's something similar....I'm sure an Aussie user could detail all of that out.

The willingness to accept more gun control and not only making it harder for people to get a hold of firearms but the widespread banning of particular guns (handguns in the UK case) will not fly in the US for a large proportion of the population. Hell, most Americans wouldn't go as far as banning handguns, most are just talking about semi automatic weapons and limiting magazine capacities as a couple of examples and even that is proving difficult to push through.

So I think in the case of the United States, if you want to not only try to prevent these shootings from happening but also lower overall gun crime and homicides, I think the best way is to make it harder for people actually gain access to those firearms in the form of extensive background checks. The lack of this in this case is what allowed this maniac to get a gun to begin with. More importantly than that though, it's how those checks and particular laws which make it harder to access guns and restrict certain people from accessing them are written into law and how they are enforced. And I'm not even just using Las Vegas as an example.

Last year, 25% of all gun related homicides were committed in just 4 cities: Baltimore, Detroit, Chicago and Los Angeles. These are all cities in Democratic areas with stricter gun control. Now it's easy for gun control advocates to just dismiss and say that the reason why this is the case is because of neighboring states which have looser gun control laws and that is a factor don't get me wrong but if that is the case, then they have to explain why Alabama for example which is a state which has looser gun control laws only had one gun related homicide in all of 2017. The fact is there are other factors which need to be considered as causes for the huge gun related murder rates in those cities: population, gun laws not being enforced properly, a thriving black market, gang violence and yes the easier access to neighboring states guns is a reason. But if it were the main reason, you'd expect the trend for states with looser gun control laws to show that their gun related homicide rates to be higher and that simply isn't the case across the board. So there are other factors that need to considered and some heavy gun control advocates simply won't do so.

Another thing that needs to be said is that a lot of these school shootings that happen have gun free zones. In a country and an environment which has heavy gun use and appears not to be changing any time soon, that has to be one of the stupidest decisions that could possibly be made. That is just asking for someone with a mental illness or a premeditated desire to commit a mass shooting to target that particular school knowing that there is going to be no resistance or deterrent. It's one thing to have that in Austria or Switzerland who respect gun rights but don't have the violent culture that goes with it, but in the US? That's asking for trouble.

I think @Smarkout has some good common sense suggestions. Armed security at public schools would be a good idea, actually a better idea than armed teachers because they are professional. Treating owning a gun akin to driver licenses and going through a series of checks seems like a common sense idea too in order to weed out those who are mentally unfit to hold a gun. The key as I said before is how it's written into law and applied. Even with a potential assault weapons ban, it would be extremely important. We've seen how they've been written into law in certain states and still haven't worked well in practice. So I do have my reservations on how well it work but it's worth trying in my opinion.

Hell maybe my suggestions are too extreme for you guys :draper2. I don't know. What I do know is regardless of my ramblings, nothing will be done. People will point fingers at the Republicans and the NRA but at least their honest that they have reservations on how far the Democrats want to take their stand on gun control. The Democrats will grand stand every time a mass shooting happens yet even when they had a super majority under Obama in both Congress and the Senate they put through no gun control legislation. Actions speak louder than words.

And so the cycle continues.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

Makise Kurisu said:


> * The weapon that was used was easily accessible through legal means. *Too easily accessible.* This makes this situation different from the Las Vegas shooting where the weapons used and stored were already subjected to very strict gun control where the existing laws were not enforced properly and did nothing to stop the shooter from causing a massacre. A lack of gun control was not the primary reason why the Las Vegas massacre happened, it was a failure by the state government to identify the shooter as someone who should not be carrying those particular weapons under the existing gun control measures and laws.


Could you back this up with evidence. As far as I've read the las vegas shooter bought all of his gun legally and outfitted them with bumper stocks that made them automatic. All legally done.


----------



## DOPA (Jul 13, 2012)

draykorinee said:


> Could you back this up with evidence. As far as I've read the las vegas shooter bought all of his gun legally and outfitted them with bumper stocks that made them automatic. All legally done.


Was working from memory when I wrote the post and was wrong to use the term very strict to be intellectually honest but in terms of gun control and how it was applied in the Las Vegas case, the authorities did not pick up any indications that the guy shouldn't have been using fully automatic weapons. He somehow passed the background checks needed to purchase those weapons. That was what I was referring to from memory.

In Nevada you cannot purchase such a weapon without passing an extensive background check which he somehow did. This shows that in this case, the gun control law both federally and at the state level did not stop the guy purchasing those type of weapons despite causing a massacre: https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/l...phen-paddock-passed-background-checks-n806921



> Two Nevada gun shops confirmed Monday that they sold firearms to Mandalay Bay shooter Stephen Paddock in the last year and *said he passed all required background checks.*
> 
> It was unknown if the weapons Paddock bought from the gun shops, New Frontier Armory in North Las Vegas and Guns and Guitars in Mesquite, were used in the casino massacre.
> 
> ...



As far as the bump stocks are concerned, he did have some and you may be right that they were the used, I know some of the weapons were modified if I remember. We are both right in this instance I think: Even if he didn't use bump stocks, he still somehow managed to pass the relevant background checks to use fully automatic weapons, meaning the checks were lapse and didn't pick up the signs that he shouldn't have been sold those weapons. At the same time, he still could have gotten the bumper stocks and used them.

Having said that, do I think the gun control laws in Nevada are strict enough (now that I've re-read the case)? Personally no, I think the background checks and permits should be more extensive than they are.


----------



## JeffHardyRules9000 (Oct 14, 2009)

*Re: X-Pac Loses a Relative in Florida School Shooting*



Michael Scofield said:


> Commies don't kill children at schools. Sick Americans and people who support gun violence do.


Commies like Joseph Stalin killed 20-25 million of his own people, while other communist nations like North Korea are some of the most brutal dictatorships on earth. Get educated before you make such foolish comments. If you don't want guns and like communism so much, maybe move to North Korea?


----------



## JeffHardyRules9000 (Oct 14, 2009)

*Re: X-Pac Loses a Relative in Florida School Shooting*



DoctorWhosawhatsit said:


> Factors like getting rid of the laws that keep people with mental illness from purchasing guns? It’s also not like gun restrictions exponentially increase the price of black market arms keeping average criminals from purchasing them, oh yeah, it does. Also “stop politicizing it”? Exactly how many times does this have to happen before we’re allowed to try and stop it? And how many decades do all the other industrialized countries with gun control have to go without a shooting before Americans take a page from their book?
> 
> You’re right though many factors do play into this tragedy. Denial and compliance being chief amoung them.


You are a FOOL if you think banning guns will stop school shootings. It will not stop the problem, which is why the whole argument is stupid and pathetic. I'm so tired of liberal idiots lecturing law abiding citizens like myself about how guns are bad. Guns don't kill people, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE. Get it through your think skull. Owning a gun is my second amendment right, for MY personal protection.


----------



## JeffHardyRules9000 (Oct 14, 2009)

*Re: X-Pac Loses a Relative in Florida School Shooting*

Another fact, most shootings happen in gun free zones. Whoops, I guess criminals don't follow the law! Who would have thought?!?


----------



## Nothing Finer (Apr 12, 2017)

*Re: X-Pac Loses a Relative in Florida School Shooting*

Don't politicize this, are you fucking kidding? Do you think politics is just some fun little game that shouldn't have serious things taken into account? How else do we solve the issue if not through using politics? Is our politicians' first duty not the security of the people? I wish people who support the idea of guns being widely available were honest about how they see it instead of hiding behind bullshit morality like this idea that informing our politics with people's deaths is somehow disrespectful. 

I'll tell you what the pro-gun position on this is, because they're sure as hell won't. The position is that, yes, children being killed is terrible, but that their lives are a price worth paying for their freedom to own firearms.

Does anyone pro gun want to tell me I'm wrong?


----------



## JeffHardyRules9000 (Oct 14, 2009)

*Re: X-Pac Loses a Relative in Florida School Shooting*



Nothing Finer said:


> Don't politicize this, are you fucking kidding? Do you think politics is just some fun little game that shouldn't have serious things taken into account? How else do we solve the issue if not through using politics? Is our politicians' first duty not the security of the people? I wish people who support the idea of guns being widely available were honest about how they see it instead of hiding behind bullshit morality like this idea that informing our politics with people's deaths is somehow disrespectful.
> 
> I'll tell you what the pro-gun position on this is, because they're sure as hell won't. The position is that, yes, children being killed is terrible, but that their lives are a price worth paying for their freedom to own firearms.
> 
> Does anyone pro gun want to tell me I'm wrong?


A gun has never killed anyone, a person behind a gun is the one who kills someone. If guns were banned, people would use knives, if knives were banned, people would use iron rods. You can't ban the iron rod. It all goes back to the fact that guns don't kill people, people kill people. Stop blaming guns for the deaths of those children. The reason those children died was because a mentally ill young man, who was involved with 36 911 calls, was never identified as a real threat. 

The person was the problem, not the gun. Stop blaming the tool. The tool is not the problem.


----------



## Ludvig_Borga (Dec 10, 2017)

*Re: X-Pac Loses a Relative in Florida School Shooting*



Michael Scofield said:


> Commies don't kill children at schools.


True. They just starve them to death.

I don't have a problem with Americans having guns. The problem is that EVERYONE can buy a gun. In America it's easier to get your hands on a firearm than getting a prescription for viagra in Europe (in Finland you need a prescription for 600mg ibu). In don't know about the rest of the European countries, but in Finland if you want to buy a gun, you must go through a psychological evaluation and a good reason to buy one. "I just want a .44 magnum" is not a good reason. If you go to the police station and say "I need a pistol for self-defence", the cops will laugh so hard that you fall on your ass.


----------



## DoctorWhosawhatsit (Aug 23, 2016)

*Re: X-Pac Loses a Relative in Florida School Shooting*



JeffHardyRules9000 said:


> You are a FOOL if you think banning guns will stop school shootings.


Canada, The U.K., Japan, Australia, and many other countries say hi.

Also learn a bit about the second amendment before hiding behind it. It's a dog shit amendment.


----------



## JeffHardyRules9000 (Oct 14, 2009)

*Re: X-Pac Loses a Relative in Florida School Shooting*



Ludvig_Borga said:


> True. They just starve them to death.


Yep, they only kill off the people they deem not useful.


----------



## JeffHardyRules9000 (Oct 14, 2009)

*Re: X-Pac Loses a Relative in Florida School Shooting*



DoctorWhosawhatsit said:


> Canada, The U.K., Japan, Australia, and many other countries say hi.


Yes because banning guns stopped that huge Paris mass shooting right? One of the biggest mass shootings in history? France has strict guns laws, and it did nothing to prevent that shooting.


----------



## M.V.W. (Oct 15, 2006)

*Re: X-Pac Loses a Relative in Florida School Shooting*

Talking about criminals in these mass shootings cases is rather moot b/c often the perpetrators have no criminal records though there were some red flags.


----------



## DJ Punk (Sep 1, 2016)

*Re: X-Pac Loses a Relative in Florida School Shooting*

I don't get why people use emojis when talking about stuff like this. Makes it seem less serious. Kind of cringe, really..


----------



## Nothing Finer (Apr 12, 2017)

*Re: X-Pac Loses a Relative in Florida School Shooting*



JeffHardyRules9000 said:


> A gun has never killed anyone, a person behind a gun is the one who kills someone. If guns were banned, people would use knives, if knives were banned, people would use iron rods. You can't ban the iron rod. It all goes back to the fact that guns don't kill people, people kill people. Stop blaming guns for the deaths of those children. The reason those children died was because a mentally ill young man, who was involved with 36 911 calls, was never identified as a real threat.
> 
> The person was the problem, not the gun. Stop blaming the tool. The tool is not the problem.


Haha, what the fuck? I've never known of any person committing a mass murder with an iron rod. The mentally ill young man was able to kill so many children because he had access to a gun.

I'm not "blaming guns", moral responsibility lies with this man and those who failed to act, but the gun facilitated this massacre.

Tell you what, I'll make this easier for you. What would you rather

A) That guns were illegal for civilian use and that this massacre did not happen
B) That guns remain legal but that this massacre happened and lessons be learned from it

This is a simple question, it's not about blame, it's not about what else could have been done, it's about what your preference would be of those two options.

If it's A you're on our side. If it's B please justify why guns being legal trumps the lives of children.


----------



## Laughable Chimp (Sep 1, 2016)

*Re: X-Pac Loses a Relative in Florida School Shooting*



JeffHardyRules9000 said:


> A gun has never killed anyone, a person behind a gun is the one who kills someone. If guns were banned, people would use knives, if knives were banned, people would use iron rods. You can't ban the iron rod. It all goes back to the fact that guns don't kill people, people kill people. Stop blaming guns for the deaths of those children. The reason those children died was because a mentally ill young man, who was involved with 36 911 calls, was never identified as a real threat.
> 
> The person was the problem, not the gun. Stop blaming the tool. The tool is not the problem.


You’re right. Guns aren’t the problem. People are. Lets get rid of people then.


See how retarded that argument sounds. There’s always going to be mentally fucked up people in the world and some are always going to seep through any mental test. At the very least, getting rid of guns reduces the ability of these fucked up people to do damage. I’d sure as hell take a mentally fucked up dude with a kitchen knife over a mentally fucked up dude with a semi-auto.


----------



## JeffHardyRules9000 (Oct 14, 2009)

*Re: X-Pac Loses a Relative in Florida School Shooting*



Laughable Chimp said:


> You’re right. Guns aren’t the problem. People are. Lets get rid of people then.
> 
> 
> See how retarded that argument sounds. There’s always going to be mentally fucked up people in the world and some are always going to seep through any mental test. At the very least, getting rid of guns reduces the ability of these fucked up people to do damage. I’d sure as hell take a mentally fucked up dude with a kitchen knife over a mentally fucked up dude with a semi-auto.


Wow, to think that someone can interpret my point is such a stupid way, sad... Obviously i'm not saying get rid of people either. Getting rid of guns does not stop criminals from committing shootings because criminals don't care about the law. They will still find or make guns! How can people be so small minded to not understand this? All banning guns will do is prevent good people from defending themselves from the bad ones.


----------



## Ludvig_Borga (Dec 10, 2017)

*Re: X-Pac Loses a Relative in Florida School Shooting*



JeffHardyRules9000 said:


> Yep, they only kill off the people they deem not useful.


There is no such thing as "useful Russian".


----------



## JeffHardyRules9000 (Oct 14, 2009)

*Re: X-Pac Loses a Relative in Florida School Shooting*



Nothing Finer said:


> Haha, what the fuck? I've never known of any person committing a mass murder with an iron rod. The mentally ill young man was able to kill so many children because he had access to a gun.
> 
> I'm not "blaming guns", moral responsibility lies with this man and those who failed to act, but the gun facilitated this massacre.
> 
> ...


If guns were illegal, it probably would have happened the same way. This is what you're not comprehending. Guns are not that hard to produce, and people can make them, import them, sell them on the black market, and still get ahold of them. It doesn't matter if they are illegal because criminals don't care what is legal and what isn't legal. Especially criminals who are about to go on a massacre. All guns being illegal does is make it so LAW ABIDING CITIZENS can't get a gun in a legal way.


----------



## tomjh (Jan 19, 2011)

*Re: X-Pac Loses a Relative in Florida School Shooting*



JeffHardyRules9000 said:


> Stop trying to politicize this... If guns were banned it would only change the how, not the why. Plus, if guns are banned, criminals would still get a hold of them through the black market. It would just restrict access to them for law abiding citizens. It's disgusting how banning guns becomes a political issue every single time a mentally ill person gets a hold of one when so many other factors were at play in this tragedy.


I find it extremely sad that not wanting your kid shot in school IS a political issue..... I wouldn't wish it on anyone but if a senator or congressman's kid was shot at school... would that make any difference? Would they finally try to make improvements?

You can't say it's not a gun problem; it's a mental health issue, then cut funding for mental health.

This guy was seen 39 times by the authorities. How many times does it take before you restrict his access to weapons?

How is it that you need to pass a test, obtain a license, pay road taxes just so you can drive a car, yet you can simply go to a gun show and purchase a weapon? Taking people's guns away is not the answer; making them harder to obtain for people who shouldn't have them should be the directive. Australia did that in the 90s and a semi automatic gun ended up costing $36,000. You think this kid would have been able to afford one?

I wish so called "gun nuts" would wake up and realise that liberals are not trying to take guns away from law abiding decent citizens. It's so embedded in American culture that such a thing would take decades. 95% of people in polls are in favour of gun control in some form. e.g. being on the no-fly list and you can still purchase firearms? It's just insane. But just go on sticking your fingers in your ears and saying la-la-la. Plainly ignoring there is a problem is ridiculous. So far there has been a shooting in a school in America on average ONCE A WEEK in 2018... just let that sink in.....


----------



## JeffHardyRules9000 (Oct 14, 2009)

*Re: X-Pac Loses a Relative in Florida School Shooting*



tomjh said:


> I find it extremely sad that not wanting your kid shot in school IS a political issue..... I wouldn't wish it on anyone but if a senator or congressman's kid was shot at school... would that make any difference? Would they finally try to make improvements?
> 
> You can't say it's not a gun problem; it's a mental health issue, then cut funding for mental health.
> 
> ...


Many liberals ARE actively trying to ban guns, that's the problem. I agree that after having been seen by the authorities 39 times, this problem should have been seen and corrected before hand. No one is arguing against that. I'm arguing against guns being restricted for law abiding citizens.


----------



## Nothing Finer (Apr 12, 2017)

*Re: X-Pac Loses a Relative in Florida School Shooting*



JeffHardyRules9000 said:


> Yes because banning guns stopped that huge Paris mass shooting right? One of the biggest mass shootings in history? France has strict guns laws, and it did nothing to prevent that shooting.


The difference is that in France when 130 people are killed by shooters they call it their blackest day since 1945 and declare national days of mourning. It's a fucking major event. In the US 30 people have have been shot dead since Friday.


----------



## DoctorWhosawhatsit (Aug 23, 2016)

*Re: X-Pac Loses a Relative in Florida School Shooting*



JeffHardyRules9000 said:


> Yes because banning guns stopped that huge Paris mass shooting right? One of the biggest mass shootings in history? France has strict guns laws, and it did nothing to prevent that shooting.


France doesn't have a ban on guns, they simply don't have a "right to bare arms". Gun ownership in France is among the top fifteen highest in the world with as many as 20 million people owning guns in a population of 65 million. It is no coincidence that with a high number of legally bought and owned guns there is also a high number of illegally bought and owned guns.

Also comparing the number of mass shootings in France to the number in the United States is at best laughable at worst delusionally asinine.


----------



## Laughable Chimp (Sep 1, 2016)

*Re: X-Pac Loses a Relative in Florida School Shooting*



JeffHardyRules9000 said:


> Wow, to think that someone can interpret my point is such a stupid way, sad... Obviously i'm not saying get rid of people either. Getting rid of guns does not stop criminals from committing shootings because criminals don't care about the law. They will still find or make guns! How can people be so small minded to not understand this? All banning guns will do is prevent good people from defending themselves from the bad ones.


If that were true, criminals would be commiting crimes with guns where guns are banned. News flash, they almost never do. Banning or gun control would make it even more difficult for these criminals to procure guns in the first place, legally or otherwise. So yes, criminals will use guns less if they were to use them at all. Especially if the punishmens is ridiculously harsh. No common theif would be stupid enough to rob a store or house holding a gun if they know just holding a gun could get you life imprisonment or something.

Meanwhile, a crackdown on all guns itself makes its regulation much easier. So say you have a fucked up dude who wants to do a shooting. He’s trying to get guns, but now its difficult to do so so he has to do a lot of searching. Chances are higher that they will get caught by cops as they spent tome searching for these guns before they are able to commit these shootings.

Lastly, difficulty is a deterrent. The mentally fucked up people who do these shootigs don’t plan this for all their life. If they know its much more difficult to do these shootinngs, they migt just not do it. Its not like these people were programmed from birth to shoot up a school. Its common sense. Make something hard to do, and chances are lower that you would do it. 

And if you want to argue that they’d use another weapon, like I said, I’d take a fucked up dude with a kitchen knife over a semi-auto anyday of the week. And you’re missing the point of why they want to do these shpotings in the first place. They want to be immortalized and their name be known. A shooting does that. An attack with a kitchen knife and an iron bar that might not even kill anyone and people care far less.

At the end of the day, something must be done. And fine, if you want to argue that gun control is not the solution, its your opinion. I just never want to see you cry or complain about these shootings ever agains because you refuse to try policies that have been proven to work in other countries. As far as I’m concerned, its yor own damn fault for not even attempting to do anything else. Just give uour damn useless prayers like everyone else.


----------



## DoctorWhosawhatsit (Aug 23, 2016)

*Re: X-Pac Loses a Relative in Florida School Shooting*



JeffHardyRules9000 said:


> Many liberals ARE actively trying to ban guns, that's the problem. I agree that after having been seen by the authorities 39 times, this problem should have been seen and corrected before hand. No one is arguing against that. I'm arguing against guns being restricted for law abiding citizens.


No one's trying to ban and take away all the guns. You're buying into the beyond hyperbolic NRA and GOP propaganda. Liberals are trying to make sure people who have guns are responsible enough to have a gun.


----------



## Nothing Finer (Apr 12, 2017)

*Re: X-Pac Loses a Relative in Florida School Shooting*



JeffHardyRules9000 said:


> If guns were illegal, it probably would have happened the same way. This is what you're not comprehending. Guns are not that hard to produce, and people can make them, import them, sell them on the black market, and still get ahold of them. It doesn't matter if they are illegal because criminals don't care what is legal and what isn't legal. Especially criminals who are about to go on a massacre. All guns being illegal does is make it so LAW ABIDING CITIZENS can't get a gun in a legal way.


It's far far harder for a criminal, especially some little 18 year old shitbag, to get a gun in a country where they're illegal. What sort of criminal would sell a gun to someone like him? You'd need connections and you need money, given that this guy was such a loser he likely wouldn't have had either.

If what you are saying were true we should expect to see similar massacres happening frequently in countries which have strong gun control as well. How do you reconcile the fact that the UK has had zero such massacre since banning guns with what you're saying here?


----------



## JeffHardyRules9000 (Oct 14, 2009)

*Re: X-Pac Loses a Relative in Florida School Shooting*



DoctorWhosawhatsit said:


> France doesn't have a ban on guns, they simply don't have a "right to bare arms". Gun ownership in France is among the top fifteen highest in the world with as many as 20 million people owning guns in a population of 65 million. It is no coincidence that with a high number of legally bought and owned guns there is also a high number of illegally bought and owned guns.
> 
> Also comparing the number of mass shootings in France to the number in the United States is at best laughable at worst delusionally asinine.


"French gun laws date back to April 18, 1939, though they have been amended a number of times since. They are certainly tough: There is no right to bear arms for the French, and to own a gun, you need a hunting or sporting license which needs to be repeatedly renewed and requires a psychological evaluation."

France definitely has strict gun laws, they just aren't completely banned there. However, all of those strict gun laws did nothing to prevent that mass shooting in France. The shooting was also in a gun free zone. None of those regulations stopped that mass shooting from happening. Do you think that if guns were completely banned in France that that massacre wouldn't have happened?


----------



## tomjh (Jan 19, 2011)

*Re: X-Pac Loses a Relative in Florida School Shooting*



JeffHardyRules9000 said:


> Many liberals ARE actively trying to ban guns, that's the problem. I agree that after having been seen by the authorities 39 times, this problem should have been seen and corrected before hand. No one is arguing against that. I'm arguing against guns being restricted for law abiding citizens.



Are you in favour of stopping people on the no-fly list being able to purchase a gun?
Would you support ending the gun show loophole that allows the purchase of a weapon without a background check?
How about actually having to be trained and obtain a license before you can buy a semi-automatic weapon?
These are all pretty simple forms of gun control that would not take your own guns away from you.

Personally I would go further and not allow citizens to own military firearms. By all means have a hand gun for protection (I mean this just bewilders me but it seems like many citizens live in fear), but surely you can't be in favour of walking around the mall with an AR-15? If you want to shoot semi or fully automatic guns because it's actually quite fun, can't you do that at a gun club, where the gun stays in the facility?


----------



## JeffHardyRules9000 (Oct 14, 2009)

*Re: X-Pac Loses a Relative in Florida School Shooting*



DoctorWhosawhatsit said:


> No one's trying to ban and take away all the guns. You're buying into the beyond hyperbolic NRA and GOP propaganda. Liberals are trying to make sure people who have guns are responsible enough to have a gun.


Not true, many liberals are actively campaigning to ban firearms and I will continue to fight back against that.


----------



## themuel1 (Feb 19, 2004)

*Re: X-Pac Loses a Relative in Florida School Shooting*



JeffHardyRules9000 said:


> Yes because banning guns stopped that huge Paris mass shooting right? One of the biggest mass shootings in history? France has strict guns laws, and it did nothing to prevent that shooting.


Guns smuggled into the country, a lightning fast attack with AK's and explosives. Even if French citizens could carry they would not have been allowed to bring firearms into a theatre. The terrorists fired into a large crowd of people. Nothing was going to stop that attack once the terrorists entered the theatre.

It says something though that the Paris attack and any shootings in Europe, Canada and Australia are met with shock. It seldom ever happens. You know what the reaction is around the world when we hear of a mass shooting in the USA? Even in a school? - "Oh, another one". Tragic but no surprise what so ever. 

Even with all of your guns for personal protection you still can't prevent these attacks so the logic they actually work as a form of protection in these scenarios is absolute bullshit. There is no time to react. The guys already shooting. Your logic that people kill people? Yeah, they do. So why wouldn't you want to stop high risk people, people with mental health issues for a start, getting hold of a deadly weapon? Why wouldn't you want people that are allowed to own a deadly weapon properly screened? If you have nothing to hide, what's the problem? Is it really just clinging to an amendment written centuries ago by people that lived in a completely different society, so different to the one now, it may as well have been a different country it was written for? 

A further thing - All well and good having the gun but most people would shit themselves and be useless in these situations. It's not Hollywood. No slow motion run, dive, grab gun, turn and instant take down of the shooter. How many stories of your law enforcement panicing do we hear, and they're trained!


----------



## DoctorWhosawhatsit (Aug 23, 2016)

*Re: X-Pac Loses a Relative in Florida School Shooting*



JeffHardyRules9000 said:


> Not true, many liberals are actively campaigning to ban firearms and I will continue to fight back against that.


Like who?


----------



## Nothing Finer (Apr 12, 2017)

*Re: X-Pac Loses a Relative in Florida School Shooting*



JeffHardyRules9000 said:


> "French gun laws date back to April 18, 1939, though they have been amended a number of times since. They are certainly tough: There is no right to bear arms for the French, and to own a gun, you need a hunting or sporting license which needs to be repeatedly renewed and requires a psychological evaluation."
> 
> France definitely has strict gun laws, they just aren't completely banned there. However, all of those strict gun laws did nothing to prevent that mass shooting in France. The shooting was also in a gun free zone. None of those regulations stopped that mass shooting from happening. Do you think that if guns were completely banned in France that that massacre wouldn't have happened?


I hope you'll forgive me for saying this, but it almost seems like you're saying that because of that one massacre in France you have proven that gun control doesn't work and that we can disregard their far lower rates of gun violence, and under the lower rates of gun violence in other countries which have strict guidelines control. 

You're not really saying that, are you? Surely you don't think one exceptional event proves your case.


----------



## Darkest Lariat (Jun 12, 2013)

*Re: X-Pac Loses a Relative in Florida School Shooting*

I was just thinking about if they were going to put Pac in the HOF this year too. Sorry to hear that. I hope someday we can get these assault weapons off the streets and get our shit together. No one needs to own these things.


----------



## Ratedr4life (Dec 18, 2008)

FITZ said:


> It's because of how the country is made up.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Okay, but what is it about guns that makes Americans defend their right to own them so fiercely? It's as if we're talking about taking away their children.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

JeffHardyRules9000 said:


> yeahright2 said:
> 
> 
> > ...And they STILL doesn´t want to regulate acces to firearms..
> ...


Doesn't want to politicise one of the most divisive political discussions. Then rambles on with his own politiciced position.

:franklol


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

Nothing Finer said:


> JeffHardyRules9000 said:
> 
> 
> > "French gun laws date back to April 18, 1939, though they have been amended a number of times since. They are certainly tough: There is no right to bear arms for the French, and to own a gun, you need a hunting or sporting license which needs to be repeatedly renewed and requires a psychological evaluation."
> ...


Don't you know that laws are designed to prevent ALL crime. It's why we made drink driving illegal and you never see a drink driver.

Also gun control means taking away everyone's guns.


----------



## skypod (Nov 13, 2014)

Not sure why anyone needs a semi-auto for protection. Do you expect to be attacked by a hoard of people? Do Americans know the Walking Dead is fiction?

What kind of depressing dystopian-ass universe do people need a gun for protection against other people, who ironically also have guns, necessitating the need for guns in the first place. I would hate to live like that. Come move to Scotland, you're quite welcome here, and you won't have constant thoughts of being murdered by other people with guns and you can sleep peacefully at night. I can't imagine living like that.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

I stop advocating for gun ownership bans because the Constitutional Amendment cannot be stripped because if you strip away one piece of the constitution it will set the precedent to keep chipping away at it to the point where we have no constitution left and even the best aspects of that constitution can be infringed upon. You give gun ban advocates the ability to get rid of the 2nd amendment, then you give religious people the ability to get rid of the separation of church and state and at the same time people who want to criminalize free speech attack the 1st amendment. 

But saying that doesn't mean that I don't acknowledge that we have severe problems with guns as a society as a whole obviously. The solutions that people come up with aren't even implemented by the same government we do give the authority to do what they need to do. The problem starts and ends with government incompetence. 

Everyone has the right to own a gun. The people who are even legally allowed to carry aren't placed at schools. People who WANT to use their guns to protect schools aren't allowed to do it by the same fucking government that then collects TONS of fucking taxes ---- there's no way the government is too poor to have 3-4 policemen patrolling every school in the country every day. 

The FBI gets about 9 billion dollars a year and what the fuck are they doing with that money? They're not even following legit tips on people who post threats in their own real fucking name. Meanwhile a bunch of 4chan users found a hidden flag by tracking plane movements! 

We have 250,000 schools in America. Say we station 2 policemen at every school and pay them 50k each. That's about 25 billion a year. You're telling me that local, state and federal governments can't come up with that kind of money? HAH! Of course they can, but the problem is that it's not a priority for them because there's far too much corruption with tax money - and we all see it daily. I'm not actually advocating for more government spending --- I'm just pointing out that a country of *350 million people can't come up with a 25 billion dollar solution* but the same fucking government has 1 trillion dollars to spend on roads. And about 25 billion the same amount of money Mr. Trump wants for his fucking wall which the republicans are supporting furiously! 

That's insane and it's all a matter of fucking priorities. 

As a society we spend $14-20 billion on porn btw. The cigarette industry is worth about 157 billion. The e-cigarette industry is already worth 4 billion. 

There's no way in HELL that if our public schools weren't public and the government wasn't a restrictive, slow ass hindering PoS that we wouldn't have had a complimentary private 25-50 billion dollar security industry protecting our schools by now.

Ever heard of a shooting at a private school?


----------



## Laughable Chimp (Sep 1, 2016)

Reap said:


> I stop advocating for gun ownership bans because the Constitutional Amendment cannot be stripped because if you strip away one piece of the constitution it will set the precedent to keep chipping away at it to the point where we have no constitution left and even the best aspects of that constitution can be infringed upon. You give gun ban advocates the ability to get rid of the 2nd amendment, then you give religious people the ability to get rid of the separation of church and state and at the same time people who want to criminalize free speech attack the 1st amendment.
> 
> But saying that doesn't mean that I don't acknowledge that we have severe problems with guns as a society as a whole obviously. The solutions that people come up with aren't even implemented by the same government we do give the authority to do what they need to do. The problem starts and ends with government incompetence.
> 
> ...


I heavily disagree with your constitution point. If something is problematic, you fix it. End of story. Talk about how if we remove this amendment then people would want to remove every other amendment is just wild speculation. 

If we get to a point where other people debate other amendments, then we’ll handle it then. But right now, if the second amendment is considered problematic, you change it.

Hell, the entire constitution itself should and has be subject to change. The original constitution was written hundreds of years ago and changes must be made to adapt it to the modern day. I’m sure when they added the 19th amendment, some people were against it because they thought that if women could vote, what’s to stop them adding an amendment where kids or even animals could vote?


----------



## Eva MaRIHyse (Jun 20, 2014)

I'll say forget all the stupid Left vs Right nonsense, the "Murica" types, etc. 

Surely everyone would agree something has to be done about this? Something. Anything. Like these school shootings, kids are dying all the time for no other reason than the adults who are elected to run the country for them continuously do nothing about it. Every other country (outside the Middle East, and continuously war torn/dictatorship ruled countries) when faced with this issue took steps to curb it. But America still does nothing. The kids at this school, the survivors are screaming/begging for something to be done to prevent this sort of thing in the future, but sadly nothing will be done. Its getting worse and worse, yet nothing is ever done.

And its not just gun control, so calm down ********, mental health is an issue as well. As is the FBI dropping the ball here in this particular case big time.

I'm not even American, but it disgusts me that this sort of thing is so common, and yet nothing is done about it.

And as fr as the whole Constitution/right to bear arms thing goes...America has made amendments/changes to the constitution before. That's not an issue. Living in a country with strict gun control, I can say despite the NRA's and the ******** fears, gun control does not mean no guns, it just means tighter restrictions. 

For everyone saying its a right, or you need guns for hunting, home/family defence, etc. you dont need a semi automatic gun for that. If you're hunting with a semi auto machine gun you're a pussy.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

Laughable Chimp said:


> I heavily disagree with your constitution point. If something is problematic, you fix it. End of story. Talk about how if we remove this amendment then people would want to remove every other amendment is just wild speculation.
> 
> If we get to a point where other people debate other amendments, then we’ll handle it then. But right now, if the second amendment is considered problematic, you change it.
> 
> Hell, the entire constitution itself should and has be subject to change. The original constitution was written hundreds of years ago and changes must be made to adapt it to the modern day. I’m sure when they added the 19th amendment, some people were against it because they thought that if women could vote, what’s to stop them adding an amendment where kids or even animals could vote?


You can't convince me on the lack of the worth of the constitution because I come from a country where it was regularly treated exactly the way you are advocating for it and that country is a lawless and dysfunctional shithole.



Eva MaRIHyse said:


> And as fr as the whole Constitution/right to bear arms thing goes...America has made amendments/changes to the constitution before. That's not an issue. Living in a country with strict gun control, I can say despite the NRA's and the ******** fears, gun control does not mean no guns, it just means tighter restrictions.


And another problem is that people keep coming back making this statement show that they haven't been assimilating new information that gets repeated here consistently and that is that restrictions exist and they accomplish nothing. Restrictions don't work.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

Reap said:


> You can't convince me on the lack of the worth of the constitution because I come from a country where it was regularly treated exactly the way you are advocating for it and that country is a lawless and dysfunctional shithole.
> 
> 
> 
> And another problem is that people keep coming back making this statement show that they haven't been assimilating new information that gets repeated here consistently and that is that restrictions exist and they accomplish nothing. Restrictions don't work.


Armed guards don't work either. This school had an armed guard and he was not in the right place at the right time. Why advocate spending billions on something that was useless in this situation.

You can't grumble about restrictions not working while in the same breath clamouring for more guns in school when they didn't work.

As to not changing the constitution, why not? Its been done 27 times so google says. I'm no expert on that mind.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

draykorinee said:


> Armed guards don't work either. This school had an armed guard and he was not in the right place at the right time. Why advocate spending billions on something that was useless in this situation.


Not of government money. Private enterprise can compensate. As for the parents who are advocates against added security of their school and children are fucking morons. 



> You can't grumble about restrictions not working while in the same breath clamouring for more guns in school when they didn't work.


Schools are designated gun-free zones - meaning that no one can carry on a public school which is why shooters have no deterrent whatsoever. Most mass shootings happen in gun-free zones. 



> As to not changing the constitution, why not? Its been done 27 times so google says. I'm no expert on that mind.


Not a single amendment has been made to repeal a right already granted, but rather to add more rights. The constitution doesn't seem to have been fundamentally changed. I don't think that the way that 27 figure has been reported is accurate at all because I can't find anywhere that says that the constitution was actually "changed". 

It's completely different when it comes to adding rights that were once restricted than taking back a right that is already granted. The only amendment that took away a right was the right to drink but that was repealed soon after. 

Look at the list. None of them have been, nor can be as DRASTIC as taking away a fundamental right. The primary theme of our constitutional amendments has been to _grant_ rights and freedoms and not limit them. I'm no constitutional scholar myself, but I understand the primary nature of the document and how it is applied in America now to an extent. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution

These changes are largely minor. They should not and cannot be used as a justification to make such a major change as taking away the right to gun ownership. 

The refusal to spend private money to fund security of children goes back to my argument that people simply have shitty priorities and being shitty parents ... and government having too much power to restrict those people who want to even provide this service for free from doing it. Goes back to government being a hindrance.


----------



## PrettyLush (Nov 26, 2017)

Just make a test that is hard and borderline impossible to acquire gun ownership/certificate. Seems like every state has their own set of laws regarding firearms, so the test should be regulated under the federal law and monitored by the ATF.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

PrettyLush said:


> Just make a test that is hard and borderline impossible to acquire gun ownership/certificate. Seems like every state has their own set of laws regarding firearms, so the test should be regulated under the federal law and monitored by the ATF.


The government has repeatedly failed to enforce its own laws that already exist. 

One of the shooters was discharged by the US military with a red flag and he was still able to buy a gun because the incompetent fucks made a "clerical error". 

Assuming that the government can be competent is a mistake.


----------



## PrettyLush (Nov 26, 2017)

@Reap Okay, Do you have any suggestions? I would like to know your take on this.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

PrettyLush said:


> @Reap Okay, Do you have any suggestions? I would like to know your take on this.


He said earlier, he wants armed guards and tighter security at schools. Both things that were at this school mind.

But no restrictions on guns. Or no more restrictions, i'm not sure.


----------



## PrettyLush (Nov 26, 2017)

Okay, but I thought there was already armed guards at the school but that kid somehow avoided the guards and messing with the fire alarms.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

draykorinee said:


> He said earlier, he wants armed guards and tighter security at schools. Both things that were at this school mind.


Not really. The teacher who died ended up using his body as a shield. Don't you think if he had a gun he had a better chance? Allow these people to have a fighting chance instead of being forced to use their bodies as shields ... 



> But no restrictions on guns. Or no more restrictions, i'm not sure.


There's plenty of restrictions. Plenty of laws in place. Plenty of opportunities for the FBI/local authorities and even people doing things, but there's a lot of stupid attitudes that keep things from changing so I agree with liberals on that. You CANNOT remove 300 million guns without at least a 100 million of those ending up exclusively in the hands of criminals. C'mon. Criminals are NOT going to surrender the guns. They'll just stockpile them. Do you know how BIG America is. Do you really think that in one of the larges countries in the world guns can't be stockpiled away from BIG BROTHER? 

Florida is a sinkhole of the worst of American gun culture and I've already admitted that. You have to change mindsets here about gun sales and those attitudes won't change overnight. 

My short term solution is to stop schools from being gun-free zones, train and arm the teachers. If the students know that they are entering an area where they can't shoot without getting shot it will at least act as a deterrent in *some* cases and if it prevents even 1 mass shooter then hasn't it done its job? 

As it stands right now, the ONLY people who can be armed at schools are the shooters themselves because they don't give a fuck about the law anyways. 

I drove through my new city yesterday and I was really impressed. It's a very young city with a good mix of liberals/conservatives and every school I visited had a police cruiser. So that can be another solution.


----------



## ElTerrible (Feb 8, 2004)

Any person who thinks a private person, mentally healthy or ill, with or without a criminal record, should be allowed to legally own an semi-automatic assault rifle, is an idiot PERIOD.

How many of these recent mass shooting have been committed with hand guns and hunting rifles? Aha. 

All that would be necessary and basic common sense is to

1) Ban assault rifles period.

2) Gun ownership restricted to handguns and hunting rifles

3) A mandatory background check for such purchases 

But no instead people discuss turning schools into high security prisons. It beggars belief. 

The boy hated school, held a grudge against his teachers and his classmates. Okay so the school is a high-security prison now. What will the attacker do? He looks for another soft target instead. 

He drives up to a birthday party at a private house, a cinema or a restaurant and mows down his former classmates there. You cannot have every out of school student gathering under 24/7 surveillance.


----------



## PrettyLush (Nov 26, 2017)

@Reap Armed guards and tighter security is the most logical short-term solution at this point since public school is owned by the govt so it's logical for the government to protect their own property, and I agree with you on deterrence, the downside is, only sane person will be affected since there are cases where the shooters killed themselves before someone could stop them or put bullets through their heads. I still I agree with what you were proposing, but just because unlike other countries, the US is that kind of country that need this kind of solution for reasons that other people outside the US couldn't understand.


----------



## FITZ (May 8, 2007)

Ratedr4life said:


> Okay, but what is it about guns that makes Americans defend their right to own them so fiercely? It's as if we're talking about taking away their children.


Because it's a guaranteed right in the Constitution. The US government was created with the express purpose of being a limited form of government. The Constitution, even without the Bill of Rights, sets out to limit the powers of the federal government. 

So when you have things guaranteed to you and a government based on having limits you get these attitudes.


----------



## Kabraxal (Jun 14, 2004)

ElTerrible said:


> Any person who thinks a private person, mentally healthy or ill, with or without a criminal record, should be allowed to legally own an semi-automatic assault rifle, is an idiot PERIOD.
> 
> How many of these recent mass shooting have been committed with hand guns and hunting rifles? Aha.
> 
> ...


You realise most true mass shootings occured with handguns right? And semi automatic rifles are popular hunting rifles.....

It’s this kind of ignorance that makes it impossible to respect the arguments of the gun control crowd.


----------



## Ratedr4life (Dec 18, 2008)

FITZ said:


> Because it's a guaranteed right in the Constitution. The US government was created with the express purpose of being a limited form of government. The Constitution, even without the Bill of Rights, sets out to limit the powers of the federal government.
> 
> So when you have things guaranteed to you and a government based on having limits you get these attitudes.


Yeah but you have to agree, when that part was written we were talking about muskets and other basic weapons at the time. These men never envisioned the weapons that would be available to the US Army let alone general public in 2017, if they had it very well may not have been written in.

Also, it's called an amendment. By definition it is "a change or addition to a legal or statutory document", so if it can be changed once it can be changed again.


----------



## Ratedr4life (Dec 18, 2008)

Kabraxal said:


> You realise most true mass shootings occured with handguns right? And semi automatic rifles are popular hunting rifles.....
> 
> It’s this kind of ignorance that makes it impossible to respect the arguments of the gun control crowd.


Oh thanks for helping the argument to ban the sales of handguns then as well. 

Just a few examples of AR-15 mass shootings for ya.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/02/14/ar-15-mass-shootings/339519002/


> Feb. 24, 1984: Tyrone Mitchell, 28, used an AR-15, a Stoeger 12-gauge shotgun and a Winchester 12-gauge shotgun to kill two and wound 12 at 49th Street Elementary School in Los Angeles before killing himself.
> Oct. 7, 2007: Tyler Peterson, 20, used an AR-15 to kill six and injure one at an apartment in Crandon, Wis., before killing himself.
> June 20, 2012: James Eagan Holmes, 24, used an AR-15-style .223-caliber Smith and Wesson rifle with a 100-round magazine, a 12-gauge Remington shotgun and two .40-caliber Glock semi-automatic pistols to kill 12 and injure 58 at a movie theater in Aurora, Colo.
> Dec. 14, 2012: Adam Lanza, 20, used an AR-15-style rifle, a .223-caliber Bushmaster, to kill 27 people — his mother, 20 students and six teachers — in Newtown, Conn., before killing himself.
> ...


----------



## Dr. Middy (Jan 21, 2015)

Probably the easiest solution right now is to have armed guards at every school. You could first maybe focus on higher prone areas to gun violence, like a Chicago or Baltimore, and work from there. Ideally, it would be good to perhaps make a push for some funding given for every school that only would be used for security purposes, whether those be armed guards, camera systems setup at entrances/exits, etc. 

I'd also make it a priority as well to set up assemblies in these schools to help introduce the guards to entire student bodies and the teachers. When you especially think about elementary school, I don't blame some kids for being scared of a big armed dude suddenly becoming a fixed part of their daily school lives. But what they need to do is make sure that these guys are personable, and that they are there to help and protect them just in case of emergency situations. Make them identify with the school so these younger kids, and some older students, won't suddenly feel antsy about the idea of increased security, as it merely is for their safety. 

For now, this is probably the easiest and quickest of the short term solutions they could do.


----------



## ElTerrible (Feb 8, 2004)

Kabraxal said:


> You realise most true mass shootings occured with handguns right? And semi automatic rifles are popular hunting rifles.....
> 
> It’s this kind of ignorance that makes it impossible to respect the arguments of the gun control crowd.


Why do you feel the need to reply to me? I already said every person that argues for private citizens possessing semi-automatic weapons is an idiot in my eyes.


----------



## Smarky Mark (Jan 3, 2017)

Ratedr4life said:


> Oh thanks for helping the argument to ban the sales of handguns then as well.


Now you're arguing in favor of banning handguns as well? What does common sense gun reform have to do with banning all guns? This is what people mean by taking things too far.

There is no argument to be made why someone can't own a handgun.


----------



## FITZ (May 8, 2007)

Ratedr4life said:


> Yeah but you have to agree, when that part was written we were talking about muskets and other basic weapons at the time. These men never envisioned the weapons that would be available to the US Army let alone general public in 2017, if they had it very well may not have been written in.
> 
> Also, it's called an amendment. By definition it is "a change or addition to a legal or statutory document", so if it can be changed once it can be changed again.


Your first argument is a bad one. In the 1780s the internet did not exist. The manner in which we are communicating right now could not even be imagined. Yet there is no doubt or debate that the 1st Amendment protects what I say here. 

Except it can't actually be changed. Theoretically you can change the Constitution. In all actuality you cannot. There are 27 Amendments. 10 of them were right away. That's 17 Amendments 230 years. The Civil War led to 3. Banning alcohol and then un-banning it make up 2. The Vietnam War got the voting age raised to 18. A president being murdered got the 25th. FDR breaking tradition and being president for so long got an Amendment. 

And almost every single Amendment gives people more rights. Very few take them away. And the most obvious one that did a right away (banning alcohol) was repealed. 

And the main reason it won't ever be repealed is fairly simple. A large portion of the population will not voluntarily relinquish rights to the government. It doesn't matter what the right is. 



ElTerrible said:


> Why do you feel the need to reply to me? I already said every person that argues for private citizens possessing semi-automatic weapons is an idiot in my eyes.


Do you know what semi-automatic means?


----------



## GothicBohemian (May 26, 2012)

Teens dying in their classroooms from gunfire prompting folks to suggest instilling gun-carrying guards backed up by surveillance cameras, metal detectors and locked doors at schools is the saddest thing I've ever read. How does a country not at war get to that point?


----------



## Ratedr4life (Dec 18, 2008)

FITZ said:


> *Your first argument is a bad one. In the 1780s the internet did not exist. The manner in which we are communicating right now could not even be imagined. Yet there is no doubt or debate that the 1st Amendment protects what I say here. *
> 
> Except it can't actually be changed. Theoretically you can change the Constitution. In all actuality you cannot. There are 27 Amendments. 10 of them were right away. That's 17 Amendments 230 years. The Civil War led to 3. Banning alcohol and then un-banning it make up 2. The Vietnam War got the voting age raised to 18. A president being murdered got the 25th. FDR breaking tradition and being president for so long got an Amendment.
> 
> ...


Not really the same thing, communication mediums may have changed with technological advancements, but the basic function is the same. Expression of thoughts and beliefs without fear of prosecution, whether spoken in person or online.

The answer is not more guns, I don't know about you but I wouldn't want to send my children to a school with armed guards on standby at all times. I'm not a teacher, but I would imagine if I was I wouldn't want to have a gun in my classroom either. The risk of a student getting and using a gun in the school is much higher than it is if they had to go out and buy it. We'd almost be taunting psychos like this to try and get the gun away from the teacher or security officer.


----------



## Ratedr4life (Dec 18, 2008)

Smarky Mark said:


> Now you're arguing in favor of banning handguns as well? What does common sense gun reform have to do with banning all guns? This is what people mean by taking things too far.
> 
> There is no argument to be made why someone can't own a handgun.


Okay, then please respond to this question, because no one seems to be able to on this forum.

I want access to grenade launchers, machine guns, ballistic missiles and other explosives so I can protect myself in the extremely slim likelihood a tyrannical government rises into power.

Can I have these things?

If the answer is no, because it would be way to dangerous in the hands of a civilian, since I could cause mass casualties at ease, then can you see my point?


----------



## Smarky Mark (Jan 3, 2017)

Ratedr4life said:


> Okay, then please respond to this question, because no one seems to be able to on this forum.
> 
> I want access to grenade launchers, machine guns, ballistic missiles and other explosives so I can protect myself in the extremely slim likelihood a tyrannical government rises into power.
> 
> ...


You're missing the point.

By making it illegal to carry guns, the only people you are hurting are the law abiding gun owners.

Banning guns will not keep guns out of the hands of bad people, just like banning drugs don't keep drugs out of the hands of bad people. Bad people do not follow the law. 

Guns will still find their way into the country only now they would be exclusively in the hands of criminals. The good law abiding people would be left utterly defenseless.

This does not sound like a rational solution to me.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

Ratedr4life said:


> Can I have these things?


Yes. 



> If the answer is no, because it would be way to dangerous in the hands of a civilian, since I could cause mass casualties at ease, then can you see my point?


The answer isn't no but allowing the government exclusive rights on high grade weapons in cases where the culture of those countries is not to go to war has not resulted in those countries going to war. The vast, vast majority of citizens will be the same. 

Also the government is made up of the same people you don't trust, voted in by the same people you don't trust but you trust the government :lmao :clap


----------



## Ratedr4life (Dec 18, 2008)

Smarky Mark said:


> You're missing the point.
> 
> By making it illegal to carry guns, the only people you are hurting are the law abiding gun owners.
> 
> ...


:lmao you still haven't answered my question.

Okay, I live in Canada, we essentially have the same values, beliefs, media, education system and culture. Only major differences is our different stances on healthcare and guns.

We have gun laws here in Canada keeping this types of weapons out of the hands of our citizens and we don't have mass shootings on the regular. There isn't this influx of guns coming into the hands of bad guys here, not to say there isn't but it isn't nearly as big of a problem as it could be.

So why does it work in Canada and the majority of other first world nations, but not the US?

Also, have you or anyone you have ever know used a weapon in self defense?


----------



## Ratedr4life (Dec 18, 2008)

Reap said:


> Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm not following your answer.

Are you saying you don't trust the government you voted in? What does going to war have to do with anything?


----------



## Smarky Mark (Jan 3, 2017)

Ratedr4life said:


> :lmao you still haven't answered my question.
> 
> Okay, I live in Canada, we essentially have the same values, beliefs, media, education system and culture. Only major differences is our different stances on healthcare and guns.
> 
> ...


Are handguns illegal in Canada as well?

If they aren't then this is a moot point.


----------



## Smarky Mark (Jan 3, 2017)

Ratedr4life said:


> I'm not following your answer.
> 
> Are you saying you don't trust the government you voted in? What does going to war have to do with anything?


You trust our government? How many more scandals, conspiracies and cover-ups do you need to witness before you realize that maybe our leaders don't always have the people's best interest in mind? 

Your government lies to you everyday. All of the major news networks are in league with the democratic and republican branches, constantly pushing their propaganda. 

You would deny this?


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Smarky Mark said:


> You're missing the point.
> 
> By making it illegal to carry guns, the only people you are hurting are the law abiding gun owners.
> 
> ...


yes it will Australia already proved this


----------



## Ratedr4life (Dec 18, 2008)

Smarky Mark said:


> You trust our government? How many more scandals, conspiracies and cover-ups do you need to witness before you realize that maybe our leaders don't always have the people's best interest in mind?
> 
> Your government lies to you everyday. All of the major news networks are in league with the democratic and republican branches, constantly pushing their propaganda.
> 
> You would deny this?


I may not agree with all their polices, but yeah I trust my government not to wage war on me and other citizens. Kind of scary you don't have that faith in your government.



Smarky Mark said:


> Are handguns illegal in Canada as well?
> 
> If they aren't then this is a moot point.


They are legal to own, but it seems we have way more checks and balances in place to ensure they don't get in the wrong hands. Saying that though, I don't know a single person who owns one. Not even a shotgun.

Thing is if we had the mass causalities tied to gun violence on a percentage basis in Canada comparable to the US, laws would change and we'd restrict these weapons further. I don't think we have the same mentality or culture when it comes to guns where there would be an uproar over it. There are bigger problems out there like education, healthcare and the economy. 

The US has the same problems, why you chose to focus your efforts on gun ownership and not those other items is bewildering to me.

Your President Donald Duck, seems to be more focused on protecting American from outside parties, building walls and putting travel bans in place, when the single largest contributor to violent American deaths comes from within.

Even the San Bernardino, who get labelled Terrorist, while white mass shooters are labelled "mentally ill", used your own system against you by having someone who would clear background checks purchase the weapons for them.


----------



## Doc (Oct 4, 2010)

*Re: X-Pac Loses a Relative in Florida School Shooting*



JeffHardyRules9000 said:


> You are a FOOL if you think banning guns will stop school shootings. It will not stop the problem, which is why the whole argument is stupid and pathetic. I'm so tired of liberal idiots lecturing law abiding citizens like myself about how guns are bad. Guns don't kill people, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE. Get it through your think skull. Owning a gun is my second amendment right, for MY personal protection.


Fuck your second amendment. That was written when the most powerful weapon available was a single shot musket which was a pain in the arse to load.

Typical response, well I need my here gun to protect my family from the commies and the Japs. 

Fuck outta here with that bullshit.


----------



## Smarky Mark (Jan 3, 2017)

Ratedr4life said:


> They are legal to own, but it seems we have way more checks and balances in place to ensure they don't get in the wrong hands. Saying that though, I don't know a single person who owns one. Not even a shotgun.
> 
> *Thing is if we had the mass causalities tied to gun violence on a percentage basis in Canada comparable to the US, laws would change and we'd restrict these weapons further.* I don't think we have the same mentality or culture when it comes to guns where there would be an uproar over it. There are bigger problems out there like education, healthcare and the economy.
> 
> ...


1. What laws would you institute.

2. In what ways can you assure me that criminals would abide by these laws.


----------



## Mister Abigail (May 22, 2014)

I see all the pro gun guys saying everything suggested won’t work. All I see is that it won’t work. 

So, gun guys, how would you stop the ridiculous amount of massacres? I see no suggestions, just naysayers. Just let it go on? Happy as long as you get to do what you want?


----------



## Smarky Mark (Jan 3, 2017)

Mister Abigail said:


> I see all the pro gun guys saying everything suggested won’t work. All I see is that it won’t work.
> 
> So, gun guys, how would you stop the ridiculous amount of massacres? I see no suggestions, just naysayers. Just let it go on? Happy as long as you get to do what you want?


The short term solution? More common sense gun reform, more armed security in public spaces.

The long term solution? Be better parents and raise better children. Less sick fucks means less cause for concern. The people need to take responsibility.


----------



## Mister Abigail (May 22, 2014)

Smarky Mark said:


> The short term solution? More common sense gun reform, more armed security in public spaces.
> 
> The long term solution? Be better parents and raise better children. Less sick fucks means less cause for concern. The people need to take responsibility.


Gun reform like what?

How are you going to make parents better? Like, practically? Saying it is easy but how do you (not you personally) make it happen?


----------



## Smarky Mark (Jan 3, 2017)

Mister Abigail said:


> Gun reform like what?
> 
> How are you going to make parents better? Like, practically? Saying it is easy but how do you (not you personally) make it happen?


If a 19 year old has an easier time purchasing an assault rifle than a can of beer, something is wrong. There obviously needs to be a more rigorous screening process when it comes to selling firearms. At the same time though you must also not prevent law abiding citizens from having access.

Our leaders don't demand anything of the people anymore, they pander to them. They tell then what they want to hear. They say things that sound good in speeches but don't carry any meaning at all. Both democrat and republican.

Kennedy said it's not what your country can do for you, but what YOU can do for your country. We need strong leaders to emphasize how important it is for YOU to be responsible for your children and no one else. Your children are YOUR responsibility. If you cannot raise and/or support your children then you DO NOT have children.


----------



## Mister Abigail (May 22, 2014)

Smarky Mark said:


> If a 19 year old has an easier time purchasing an assault rifle than a can of beer, something is wrong. There obviously needs to be a more rigorous screening process when it comes to selling firearms. At the same time though you must also not prevent law abiding citizens from having access.
> 
> Our leaders don't demand anything of the people anymore, they pander to them. They tell then what they want to hear. They say things that sound good in speeches but don't carry any meaning at all. Both democrat and republican.
> 
> Kennedy said it's not what your country can do for you, but what YOU can do for your country. We need strong leaders to emphasize how important it is for YOU to be responsible for your children and no one else. Your children are YOUR responsibility. If you cannot raise and/or support your children then you DO NOT have children.


You’re still just talking. You’ve said nothing that is an actual implementation strategy though. How do you prevent shit heads from raising shit head kids? Kids don’t listen to parents and parents don’t listen to governments.


----------



## Smarky Mark (Jan 3, 2017)

Mister Abigail said:


> You’re still just talking. You’ve said nothing that is an actual implementation strategy though. How do you prevent shit heads from raising shit head kids? *Kids don’t listen to parents and parents don’t listen to governments*.


Wasn't always the case.

There was a time when most children had no choice but to respect authority and respect their elders. Today's children are afforded far more lenience.

I blame the hippie generation.


----------



## Mister Abigail (May 22, 2014)

Smarky Mark said:


> Wasn't always the case.
> 
> There was a time when most children had no choice but to respect authority and respect their elders. Today's children are afforded far more lenience.
> 
> I blame the hippie generation.


Ok so no solution or suggestion. Have a nice day.


----------



## Smarky Mark (Jan 3, 2017)

Mister Abigail said:


> Ok so no solution or suggestion. Have a nice day.


Did you completely skip over the part where I said we should have more guards and more gun reform?


----------



## Eva MaRIHyse (Jun 20, 2014)

Reap said:


> You can't convince me on the lack of the worth of the constitution because I come from a country where it was regularly treated exactly the way you are advocating for it and that country is a lawless and dysfunctional shithole.
> 
> 
> 
> And another problem is that people keep coming back making this statement show that they haven't been assimilating new information that gets repeated here consistently and that is that restrictions exist and they accomplish nothing. Restrictions don't work.


Restrictions don’t work...except in every country with gun restrictions.


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

It seems to be pretty simple - 2nd amendment, NRA gun loyalists simply believe their right to own whatever guns they want is more important than the prospect of saving lives in future mass public shootings.

Not until they get real blood on their hands and their own kids or family dies at the hands of a psycho will they change, maybe not even then.


----------



## Ratedr4life (Dec 18, 2008)

Smarky Mark said:


> 1. What laws would you institute.
> 
> 2. In what ways can you assure me that criminals would abide by these laws.


Ban on the production of these weapons in the US. Go after the gun manufactures. 

You can offer money or tax deductions on guns returned like Australia did.

Treat the gun trade like you do the drug trade and strictly enforce it.

Sure, gangs and criminals aren't going to give up their guns, but you're eventually going to round up firearms in their possession over time. They'll buy from overseas, but that's no different than how law enforcement stops drugs coming over the border.

Americans are beyond any other solution, they've proven not capable of having a free society with guns. It's not the best solution out there, but by standing by and doing nothing the last 20-30 years, you've left no other option.

I understand this sounds crazy to someone who's probably grown up with guns around and thinks they're not harming anyone by owning them, but the people you are harming is your fellow citizens and future victims of gun violence.

You're right to own a gun shouldn't outweigh someones life. It's preposterous to think it does.

We'll be here in 3 months time discussing the same topic.


----------



## FITZ (May 8, 2007)

Ratedr4life said:


> Not really the same thing, communication mediums may have changed with technological advancements, but the basic function is the same. Expression of thoughts and beliefs without fear of prosecution, whether spoken in person or online.


The basic functions of weapons are also the same despite advances in technology. They exist to kill. 

I won't try to say what the right way to interpret the Constitution is. But I will say that you have to interpret it all in a consistent manner. If the Second Amendment doesn't apply to modern weapons the same exact logic applies to communication. And it applies to anything. That's how the legal system works. You get precedent and use it in other cases. Which is why a court can't say something like you're saying. And it's why your line of thinking is extremely dangerous.


----------



## Smarky Mark (Jan 3, 2017)

Ratedr4life said:


> Ban on the production of these weapons in the US. Go after the gun manufactures.
> 
> You can offer money or tax deductions on guns returned like Australia did.
> 
> ...


You don't get to tell me that I'm a bad person because I think I have the right to own a gun. You're entitled to your beliefs, and we obviously have different approaches to the solution, but you have no right to judge anyone.

Today you take my gun, tomorrow you take my sword. When does it end? Apparently since the chances of me being the victim of a violent crime are so small you don't think I should get to choose how I defend myself.

I guess if one were to get assaulted by a gang or something they would just have to take their lumps. But hey it's okay... all they got are a bunch of knives.


----------



## FITZ (May 8, 2007)

Ratedr4life said:


> Ban on the production of these weapons in the US. Go after the gun manufactures.
> 
> You can offer money or tax deductions on guns returned like Australia did.
> 
> ...


It wouldn't be just the criminals refusing to turn over their guns. I can name 3 family members of mine who wouldn't turn their guns. I can also name 2 members of law enforcement in my family who would refuse to enforce the ban. I can tell you that I personally would be more likely to have a gun in my home if the government banned them. 

MORE people are buying guns now then they have in years. There has been more talk of gun control recently then there has been in a long time. It looks like people are buying guns because they think the government will ban them. That doesn't bode well for them complying with the ban.

Police aren't robots. 

I've went into detail on this and you just keep saying take the guns. That would be extremely difficult and potentially dangerous to do.


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

FITZ said:


> It wouldn't be just the criminals refusing to turn over their guns. I can name 3 family members of mine who wouldn't turn their guns. I can also name 2 members of law enforcement in my family who would refuse to enforce the ban. I can tell you that I personally would be more likely to have a gun in my home if the government banned them.
> 
> MORE people are buying guns now then they have in years. There has been more talk of gun control recently then there has been in a long time. It looks like people are buying guns because they think the government will ban them. That doesn't bode well for them complying with the ban.
> 
> ...


But you have to start these things with single steps - send a message. Pass legislation that stands up to the all powerful NRA and chip away at this idea that having guns is so connected to patriotism etc.

Ofcourse it won't change things overnight but it will help to change the culture over time - the result may be if it doesn't appear so easy for the next psycho to obtain guns for their rampage then perhaps they don't entertain the idea so easily.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

The recent spate of school shootings started in America in the 1990's. Let's examine the facts, shall we: 

Before *1976* school massacres were not as common as they are now: 



> 1976, 12 July - California State University, Fullerton massacre - (7 deaths)
> 1974, December 30 - Olean High School shooting - (3 dead)
> 1970, 4 May - Kent State shootings (4 deaths)
> 1966, 12 November - Mesa, Arizona - (5 deaths) [19]
> ...


During the era of legalized machine guns in America, the number of school shootings were very low. In fact, there were often decades between massacres. So there is absolutely no correlation between the type of gun and desire to shoot up a school. 

In fact, Machine Gun ban came 30 years ago ---- and interestingly, over the past 30 years, the rate of school massacres have gone up:



> 2018, 14 February - Marjory Stoneman Douglas High school shootings - (17 dead)
> 2017, November 14 - Rancho Tehama Reserve shootings - (6 dead)
> 2017 April 10 - North Park Elementary School shooting - (3 dead)
> 2015, 1 October - Umpqua Community College shooting - (10 dead)
> ...


So, what happened in 1990 that suddenly caused a massive jump in the rate of school shootings. 

Oh yeah. Schools were designated gun free zones. 

Schools were designated Gun Free Zones in 1990. There was a gap in school shootings between 1976 and 1990. So the *only* thing that has led to an increase in shooting massacres in schools is the fact that schools were designated gun free zones. Clearly the fact that schools were not gun free zones was acting as the deterrent ... Even the MACHINE GUN ERA in America did not have mass school shootings. The pre-gun-free-zone era had decades gaps between shootings, and when parents and teachers were allowed to carry, there were no people going crazy with guns. 

*Repealing the Gun Free Zone Act will fix the problem. *


----------



## Ratedr4life (Dec 18, 2008)

FITZ said:


> The basic functions of weapons are also the same despite advances in technology. They exist to kill.
> 
> I won't try to say what the right way to interpret the Constitution is. But I will say that you have to interpret it all in a consistent manner. If the Second Amendment doesn't apply to modern weapons the same exact logic applies to communication. And it applies to anything. That's how the legal system works. You get precedent and use it in other cases. Which is why a court can't say something like you're saying. And it's why your line of thinking is extremely dangerous.


They do, my point was I find it hard to believe they envisioned an American Citizen would kill 10, 20, 100 civilians at one time using the laws the enacted.



FITZ said:


> It wouldn't be just the criminals refusing to turn over their guns. I can name 3 family members of mine who wouldn't turn their guns. I can also name 2 members of law enforcement in my family who would refuse to enforce the ban. I can tell you that I personally would be more likely to have a gun in my home if the government banned them.
> 
> MORE people are buying guns now then they have in years. There has been more talk of gun control recently then there has been in a long time. It looks like people are buying guns because they think the government will ban them. That doesn't bode well for them complying with the ban.
> 
> ...


I never said take them by force, it would be a volunteer program with some sort of cash exchange or other means. 

But you're probably right, the police officers who would have to enforce this are more than likely gun owners themselves. I don't know, your country is fucked on this issue.



Smarky Mark said:


> You don't get to tell me that I'm a bad person because I think I have the right to own a gun. You're entitled to your beliefs, and we obviously have different approaches to the solution, but you have no right to judge anyone.
> 
> Today you take my gun, tomorrow you take my sword. When does it end? Apparently since the chances of me being the victim of a violent crime are so small you don't think I should get to choose how I defend myself.
> 
> I guess if one were to get assaulted by a gang or something they would just have to take their lumps. But hey it's okay... all they got are a bunch of knives.


I'm not judging your personally, you seem like a logical person with good points, I just don't know how to argue the logic that children or adults being mowed down with weapons that I don't think should be available to the general public isn't more important as your rights to own these weapons. No other modern democracy has this problem to this extent. We all somehow manage to go on with our days without it. 

How would you solve this?


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

Turns out that the FBI had not 1 but 2 reports of the shooter and they did nothing.

Orlando Shooter: FBI Investigated and let go
Charleston Shooter: FBI caught the guy and didn't enter the arrest into the national database (this database shows up in background checks). 
Texas Shooter: Airforce didn't enter the guy's record into the database (same database would have denied the guy the ability to purchase a gun)
Parkland Shooter: Reported Twice to the FBI and Police visited his home 39 times

But yeah ... "Restrictions and laws" are the problems fpalm


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/963923966216765441
"Literally no leftist wants to take away your guns" :mj


----------



## zonetrooper5 (Oct 27, 2013)

If my own country can bring in gun control then why can't America? 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_policy_in_the_United_Kingdom



> In the United Kingdom, access by the general public to firearms is tightly controlled by law which is much more restrictive than the minimum rules required by the European Firearms Directive, but it is less restrictive in Northern Ireland. The country has one of the lowest rates of gun homicides in the world.[1] There were 0.05 recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm per 100,000 inhabitants in the five years to 2011 (15 to 38 people per annum). Gun homicides accounted for 2.4% of all homicides in the year 2011.[2] There is some concern over the availability of illegal firearms.[3][4][5] Office for National Statistics figures show 7,866 offences in which firearms were involved in the year ending March 2015, 2% up on the previous year and the first increase in 10 years. Of these, 19 were fatalities, 10 fewer than the previous year and the lowest since records began in 1969.[6] There was a further rise to 8,399 in the year ending March 2016, the highest number in four years, but significantly lower than the all-time high of 24,094 in 2003/04. Twenty-six resulted in fatal injuries.


Maybe just maybe, having sensible laws in place to control guns is the right thing to do. American really needs to get over its obsession with guns, put in place proper gun control laws, increase spending on mental health and ensure that law enforcement is able to catch these types of people who commit these horrible massacres.


----------



## Headliner (Jun 24, 2004)

zonetrooper5 said:


> If my own country can bring in gun control then why can't America?
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_policy_in_the_United_Kingdom
> 
> ...


Because the NRA pays people in Congress to protect gun rights. Gun control will never happen in the United States as long as the NRA has their money knee deep in the Congress. 
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/04/opinion/thoughts-prayers-nra-funding-senators.html

Oh, and they President has made it easier for people with mental illness to get guns which got praise from the NRA. Who the fuck in their right mind thinks that's a good idea? The NRA deeply supports him. He will never support gun control because that means losing NRA support. He may act like it in public because it may "sound good", but privately, and putting it into action will never happen.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...ng-obama-era-gun-checks-people-mental-n727221


----------



## Kabraxal (Jun 14, 2004)

ElTerrible said:


> Why do you feel the need to reply to me? I already said every person that argues for private citizens possessing semi-automatic weapons is an idiot in my eyes.


Just pointing out your ignorance. Your decidion of who is an idiot based of ignorance should be pointed out for rational people to dismiss your “arguments”.

And as it has been discussed, gun ownership and “culture” has been around for decades. School shootings have only recently ticked up. Seems to every one not afraid of the tool that the real issue is something deeper in society.


----------



## Vox Machina (May 22, 2014)

Reap said:


> "Literally no leftist wants to take away your guns" :mj


He's talking about assault rifles, not guns in general. And there's no reason for assault rifles (semi-automatic or otherwise) to be legal, unless you feel it's a right that you be able to spray a deer with thousands of bullets in a matter of seconds.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

Sol Katti said:


> He's talking about assault rifles, not guns in general. And there's no reason for assault rifles (semi-automatic or otherwise) to be legal, unless you feel it's a right that you be able to spray a deer with thousands of bullets in a matter of seconds.


But the current government is literally Hitler, working for the Russians and racist, and sexist and you want them to confiscate everyone's guns?

Look. I'm all for common sense laws but if the government can't even update their databases and adequately check out legit threats, then they should never get the power to confiscate anyone's guns. The sheer level of incompetence would simply result in the most passive shmucks giving up their guns meanwhile the criminals will not. The government can't even keep drugs off the street. They're never going to get anyone's guns but for the most submissive kind of people anyways.


----------



## Vox Machina (May 22, 2014)

Reap said:


> *But the current government is literally Hitler, working for the Russians and racist, and sexist* and you want them to confiscate everyone's guns?
> 
> Look. I'm all for common sense laws but if the government can't even update their databases and adequately check out legit threats, then they should never get the power to confiscate anyone's guns.


Victim complex now?

Guns will never be confiscated in that fashion, which I do realize, awful as that reality is. But you talk of databases and checking out threats... that's precisely why extensive background checks should be made for someone that wants to acquire a gun. It's harder to get a driver's license than a gun in this country.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

Sol Katti said:


> Victim complex now?
> 
> Guns will never be confiscated in that fashion, which I do realize, awful as that reality is. But you talk of databases and checking out threats... that's precisely why extensive background checks should be made for someone that wants to acquire a gun. It's harder to get a driver's license than a gun in this country.


Victim complex? No I'm pointing out the irony of wanting the government that no one trusts to have that kind of power. 

You literally quoted the post where I pointed out government failures in data entry leading to background checks failing.


----------



## Vox Machina (May 22, 2014)

Reap said:


> Victim complex? No I'm pointing out the irony of wanting the government that no one trusts to have that kind of power.
> 
> You literally quoted the post where I pointed out government failures in data entry leading to background checks failing.


I don't understand your point. So because most people don't trust the government, we shouldn't want them to do the right thing when the umpteenth tragedy occurs? That sounds fatalist to me. 

I also quoted your post that was obvious baiting. You should stay in one lane rather than swerving. :quimby


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

Sol Katti said:


> I don't understand your point. So because most people don't trust the government, we shouldn't want them to do the right thing when the umpteenth tragedy occurs? That sounds fatalist to me.
> 
> I also quoted your post that was obvious baiting. You should stay in one lane rather than swerving. :quimby


Yes. That is exactly the point. The government is incapable of fixing this problem when government bureaucrats can't even enforce the laws that already exist. 

It's not bait when people have literally called Trump Hitler, racist, sexist, and Putin's puppet. I'm just pointing out that giving that kind of government that much power to take away guns is pretty silly. How is it bait? 

You're literally more upset at me saying people think Trump is all those things and therefore should not be given that kind of power, than the tweet I posted where the guy is literally advocating mass murder.


----------



## Smarkout (Apr 9, 2015)

Ratedr4life said:


> I can't fathom an actual legitimate reason not to have a weapons ban.
> 
> You say it can't be done. I don't know if you're a gun owner, but can you explain it to me?
> 
> ...


See, I believe you bring up a great point here. Before we begin to fix the school shooting issue, we need to fix the issue of pointing fingers. 

Your last few sentences is based on blaming the people for this and blaming Republicans. I have no problem talking politics, but stopping a mass shooting has nothing to do with politics. Right now, President Trump needs to stay focused and meet with the state governors and figure something out. For some reason, I am confident the states will come up with some good ideas on this. 

The United States is not Canada, it is not any of these countries that have taken away guns. It is much larger, it is much easier to gain illegal things in the United States. 

I have watched many videos on people shooting AR 15's and I do not feel comfortable owning such a weapon. While it is technically not automatic, it is pretty damn close to it. And while I am not sure on the specifics adding a bump stock to an AR 15 makes it automatic pretty much. Go watch a video of it, that is a sight to see. 

I have been disgusted by these actions and have been looking at life differently now since I work at an elementary school after these actions. I will add some more information on the common sense changes I would make. Note that these changes include ideas from both Democrats and Republicans. 

1.) MULTIPLE armed security in every school. I am not talking about just having a handgun either. We need security that are retired vets/police that have the bulletproof vests and big guns. Let's protect our children. 

2.) Metal detectors installed in every school at every entrance and exit of the school. 

3.) There are only a couple entrance and exits to schools and every other door is locked in the school. Armed security at the entrance and exits of the school. 

4.) During dismissal and when students enter the school one security is patrolling the campus (and you can even argue this at all times). 

5.) Yearly mental health checks for all Americans. 

6.) If you decide on purchasing a gun you must pass an additional background check that show things such as amount of times suspended in school and meet 2-3 times with a doctor on whether or not you are mentally fit to own a gun. 

7.) No more gun free zones. If a parent/teacher/admin wants to carry a gun they need to fill out a form and have yet another meeting with admins about it. If you are caught trying to incite violence with your weapon on school grounds life in prison. 

8.) Assault Rifle ban. If you want to shoot one, we can still allow the gun ranges to have them. If you are caught with one prison time will happen. 

9.) If you decide to purchase a gun not only will you have a background/mental health check but everyone in your house will. 


I am saying these things as a Republican that voted for Trump as well. Gun control needs to happen at some level BUT you need security with weapons in schools as well. This security needs should have an extreme amount of training on top of their prior experience and should have a mental health check as well. It seems to me Trump understands mental health is an issue in this country judging by his recent comments. 

As a proud American we need to worry about fixing the issues and stop pointing fingers. Both sides had chances to fix it and did not. Don't worry whether or not Trump gets the credit, worry about saving hundreds of lives over the years. 

Also, Cruz should get the death penalty, just end his worthless life.


----------



## Ratedr4life (Dec 18, 2008)

Smarkout said:


> See, I believe you bring up a great point here. Before we begin to fix the school shooting issue, we need to fix the issue of pointing fingers.
> 
> Your last few sentences is based on blaming the people for this and blaming Republicans. I have no problem talking politics, but stopping a mass shooting has nothing to do with politics. Right now, President Trump needs to stay focused and meet with the state governors and figure something out. For some reason, I am confident the states will come up with some good ideas on this.
> 
> ...


Finally some common ground. I agree with most of everything you said, including your recommendations, not because I think they are the best option, I think they are the most plausible option to keep both sides happy.

Although I don't necessarily agree with adding more armed guards in schools as all that does in ingrain the next generation of children that if they want to be safe they must always be strapped, I can understand being a parent and having that peace of mind when your child goes off to school.

One problem that will arise is if you make the school into a fortress, people will get creative. Shootings will happen on school buses, on the football field during after-hours practice, school trips to the museum, etc. 

Whether the news media want to call it out as terrorism or not, these mass shootings are terrorism. When you make targets harder, soft targets become more desirable.

All for Cruz getting the death penalty. End his life as quickly as possible and take his name out of the media.


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

Reap said:


> The recent spate of school shootings started in America in the 1990's. Let's examine the facts, shall we:
> 
> Before *1976* school massacres were not as common as they are now:
> 
> ...


Correlation does not mean causation. You know this. :lol How is repealing the gun free zone act help solve a mental health issue anyway? :troll


----------



## Roxinius (Jul 21, 2014)

Sol Katti said:


> He's talking about assault rifles, not guns in general. And there's no reason for assault rifles (semi-automatic or otherwise) to be legal, unless you feel it's a right that you be able to spray a deer with thousands of bullets in a matter of seconds.


Thanks for letting us know you have no clue about guns first of the ar15 is not an assault rifle it's always funny it's the people who have no semblance of a clue about guns wanting them banned


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

You make a decision between being brave, selfless, and give up some of your freedoms for the greater good, or decide you stay scared and selfish and keep all your guns while the innocent bodies continue to pile up.

The rest is just details.


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

yeahbaby! said:


> You make a decision between being brave, selfless, and give up some of your *paranoia* and some of your freedoms for the greater good, or decide you stay scared and selfish and keep all your guns while the innocent bodies continue to pile up.
> 
> The rest is just details.



FTFY. The most ridiculous thing I've seen is people banging on about how the government are going to come and get them if they give up their guns (not necessarily here, but all over the internet.) Didn't happen when Australia did it. Also, your governmental departments kill more people than ANY government I've heard of in similar "western" developed countries. Amazing how that works out though eh?..


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

RavishingRickRules said:


> FTFY. The most ridiculous thing I've seen is people banging on about how the government are going to come and get them if they give up their guns (not necessarily here, but all over the internet.) Didn't happen when Australia did it. Also, your governmental departments kill more people than ANY government I've heard of in similar "western" developed countries. Amazing how that works out though eh?..


The government can't even find enough people for the army. :lol

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/19/pentagon-buildup-troop-recruiting-shortage-351365



> Nearly three-quarters of Americans age 17 to 24 are ineligible for the military due to obesity, other health problems, criminal backgrounds or lack of education, according to government data. That's a harsh reality check for the Pentagon’s plan to recruit tens of thousands of new soldiers, sailors, pilots and cyber specialists over the next five years.



Also why the NRA always win.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/02/19/why-the-nra-always-wins-217028



> Like the tobacco industry, the NRA has been cultivating an image of guns as a source of freedom and cool, with the extra value of protection from grievous harm.


A point I brought up earlier in the thread. Until people in the US change their minds about what owning guns stands for, nothing will be resolved.


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

FriedTofu said:


> The government can't even find enough people for the army. :lol
> 
> https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/19/pentagon-buildup-troop-recruiting-shortage-351365
> 
> ...



Where that belief falls down for me is that statistics show that areas with high gun control have significantly lower murder rates, and MASSIVELY lower rates of police being killed and people killing police. So there's 2 ways I can interpret that information: 1. Guns are dangerous and need better regulation OR 2. Guns are 100% fine but Americans are inherently fucked up and more evil when compared with the rest of the world and just murder people at far higher rates than countries with similar cultures and societies. If America wants to decide it's the latter then cool, they know their country better than I do.


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

RavishingRickRules said:


> Where that belief falls down for me is that statistics show that areas with high gun control have significantly lower murder rates, and MASSIVELY lower rates of police being killed and people killing police. So there's 2 ways I can interpret that information: 1. Guns are dangerous and need better regulation OR 2. Guns are 100% fine but Americans are inherently fucked up and more evil when compared with the rest of the world and just murder people at far higher rates than countries with similar cultures and societies. If America wants to decide it's the latter then cool, they know their country better than I do.


I think they have decided on option 2. Hence the need to own guns to defend themselves. :lol


----------



## InsipidTazz (Mar 17, 2015)

famu720 said:


> What a horrible situation in Broward County, Florida! WTH is this world coming to?


Not "world". "Country".

This doesn't happen in the rest of the developed world.

Mainly because we value children's lives above the freedom to have an assault rifle.


----------



## InsipidTazz (Mar 17, 2015)

RavishingRickRules said:


> Where that belief falls down for me is that statistics show that areas with high gun control have significantly lower murder rates, and MASSIVELY lower rates of police being killed and people killing police. So there's 2 ways I can interpret that information: 1. Guns are dangerous and need better regulation OR 2. Guns are 100% fine but Americans are inherently fucked up and more evil when compared with the rest of the world and just murder people at far higher rates than countries with similar cultures and societies. If America wants to decide it's the latter then cool, they know their country better than I do.


It's both. They're the most backward, culturally retarded, arrogant, ignorant developed nation in the world. Couple this with hundreds of millions of guns and, well, these are the results.


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

FriedTofu said:


> I think they have decided on option 2. Hence the need to own guns to defend themselves. :lol


They need to be honest about it then. Cut all the bullshit about the government and constitutions most of them probably couldn't list most of the details of and flat out say "my people are evil, they're all psychotic dangerous cunts and I need a gun to survive because we are literally incapable of not killing each other." It's stupid to continue preaching about "freedom" and all the cutesy bullshit. I do wonder why people think they're more "free" in a country where the police can shoot you down for carrying a rock in a threatening way. Or a country where you can be executed for committing crimes, whilst maintaining that they wouldn't trust a government to apply new laws because the government sucks at legal systems. I'm not sure how "free" I'd feel in a situation where summary execution in the street without a trial or due process is an everyday element of life if I'm honest. Sounds more like the life of sheep being herded for the slaughter.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

Guns are not the problem. Gun culture isn't the problem either.

The problem is how little the government values children: 










^These are all under strict government provided and paid for protection (well, except money trucks and banks, but those are allowed to be protected by maximum private security meanwhile schools are not even allowed to have private security). No one would EVER question the right of any private business owner to hire private security to protect their banks ---- But when it comes to children in schools suddenly it's no longer the right of the children to be provided private security. 

The problem is the Gun Free Zone Act. The problem is government itself.


----------



## zonetrooper5 (Oct 27, 2013)

Reap said:


> Guns are not the problem. Gun culture isn't the problem either.
> 
> The problem is how little the government values children:
> 
> ...


Yep just make sure you have armed guards, scanners etc everywhere because America can't get over its fetish of owning guns without any form of regulation. 

When every other country in the world which has brought in strict regulations on gun ownership has seen a fall in deaths/suicides then you got to ask yourself why can't America do it? 

I also don't understand why your arguing that schools should have private security when that isn't going to stop the problem of these types of massacres and is also going to cost a shit load of money for no gain. I would also suggest that turning your schools into military-esque bases is one of the most insane things I've heard that come from gun owners in America.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

zonetrooper5 said:


> When every other country in the world which has brought in strict regulations on gun ownership has seen a fall in deaths/suicides then you got to ask yourself why can't America do it?


You literally quoted me with this statement on a graph that debunks any connection between gun ownership and massacres ... Ok.

I'm not a gun owner. And I've blasted the gun culture ITT. However, there's a much, much stronger connection between the rise of high school massacres and the Gun Free Zone Act than gun ownership.

Private Schools in America have NEVER had a mass shooting of this nature. There are 33k such schools with an attendance of over 5 million children. Not 1 mass shooting because they do have private security. Of course, they're not government run schools, so they have better students, better parents, better teachers, better administrators etc etc etc. 

Mass Shooting at schools is a serious cultural problem with dozens of factors. Guns are simply the tools. What creates the shooter is a far more pressing concern. What creates the government school attending shooter?


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

RavishingRickRules said:


> FTFY. The most ridiculous thing I've seen is people banging on about how the government are going to come and get them if they give up their guns





> Also, your governmental departments kill more people than ANY government I've heard of in similar "western" developed countries. Amazing how that works out though eh?..





RavishingRickRules said:


> They need to be honest about it then. Cut all the bullshit about the government





> I do wonder why people think they're more "free" in a country where the police can shoot you down for carrying a rock in a threatening way. Or a country where you can be executed for committing crimes, whilst maintaining that they wouldn't trust a government to apply new laws because the government sucks at legal systems. I'm not sure how "free" I'd feel in a situation where summary execution in the street without a trial or due process is an everyday element of life if I'm honest. Sounds more like the life of sheep being herded for the slaughter.


you're putting in a lot of work for both sides of this argument


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

The same arguments by the pro-gun crowd over and over again after every mass shooting. Its the same BS excuses, so glad I barely posted in this thread.

there will be another huge mass shooting on this scale in a week or month and the same cycle will be repeated yet nothing will be do to stop it.


----------



## SUPA HOT FIRE. (Jun 21, 2014)

birthday_massacre said:


> The same arguments by the pro-gun crowd over and over again after every mass shooting. Its the same BS excuses, so glad I barely posted in this thread.
> 
> there will be another huge mass shooting on this scale in a week or month and the same cycle will be repeated yet nothing will be do to stop it.


Could it be because it doesn't affect them on a personal level?

I think they would sing an entirely different tune if the victim(s) was one of their relatives/family members.


----------



## The Hardcore Show (Apr 13, 2003)

SUPA HOT FIRE. said:


> Could it be because it doesn't affect them on a personal level?
> 
> I think they would sing an entirely different tune if the victim(s) was one of their relatives/family members.


No they wouldn't. Most of them want the US Government to burn to the ground or if that can't happen then they to get as much of the country to live by today's GOP's rules and standards.


----------



## samizayn (Apr 25, 2011)

Stunned at the conduct of some so-called adults on twitter. Not just random trolls, prominent, verified people.


----------



## Figure4Leglock (Aug 18, 2010)

US treats mental health problems like a joke, Guns are joke too but when these two get mixed up together it equals a problem. i dont know how you people can put your kids to school in there, high school, college, university it doesnt matter, theres always the possibility...


----------



## samizayn (Apr 25, 2011)

Political opponents of the children now claiming they were crisis actors. Vague 'tweet' I mentioned above btw, was an asshole 'keeping score' vs adults and mocking the survivors. Good thing the survivors are stronger, braver and better people than these idiots.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

samizayn said:


> Political opponents of the children now claiming they were crisis actors. Vague 'tweet' I mentioned above btw, was an asshole 'keeping score' vs adults and mocking the survivors. Good thing the survivors are stronger, braver and better people than these idiots.


Saw that too. Didn't like it. Some of the people I respected jumped on the bandwagon on attacking the kids. That's despicable. 

One of the kids that's under the heaviest attack is a vlogger and has been trying to make it into the media for a while. 

Crisis actors have been used, and are used, but David Hogg isn't one.


----------



## GothicBohemian (May 26, 2012)

samizayn said:


> Political opponents of the children now claiming they were crisis actors. Vague 'tweet' I mentioned above btw, was an asshole 'keeping score' vs adults and mocking the survivors. Good thing the survivors are stronger, braver and better people than these idiots.


Nothing from the conspiracy buffs shocks me anymore. The fake news culture that's overtaken America encourages these folks to buy into any inane theory so long as it comes from 'unbiased' internet sources. Sad as it is, I fear the people tweeting their nonsense about crisis actors believe themselves very clever, pointing out facts to enlighten the masses. It's the same mentality shown by those who see themselves saving all the "sheep" via repeatedly disrupting conversations with off topic lectures on pet issues. 

The internet has changed everything by granting access to knowledge across borders and social strata but people have difficulty discerning fact from opinion from disinformation, especially when presented with attractively packaged 'facts' matching their preconceptions and delivered via well-edited videos or non-mainstream 'news' websites. It's a brilliant but simultaneously frightening power for cultural shift we've unleashed; it's like living in the early days of the printing press.


----------



## Smarky Mark (Jan 3, 2017)

The lack of life experience ensures that children are the least knowledgeable people in the entire world. So it's kind of embarrassing when anyone, right or left, rallies around them for any kind of political points as if they're the ones we should all be paying attention to.

This march they're planning is a sham. There is no mission statement, no demands. All that they claim is that they want "gun control" without ever offering a solution themselves or describing what kind of laws they would like to see implemented. In other words no matter what legislation the govt offers in response it's not going to be enough and they will continue to whine and bitch.

Guarantee you that these marches won't feature any substantive discussions or ideas, just a bunch of angry people shouting profanities at Trump, celebrities looking for attention by playing 'woke' with the kiddies, and yes... probably some genuine moments of sadness and reflection.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

Kids can have bad opinions. They can have terrible opinions. What's unacceptable is allowing them to grow up with the same opinions and showing a complete inability to budge from their childhood indoctrination. What's also unacceptable is shaming them for "being children" instead of engaging them in debate. (Though I'm guessing that youth is pretty much already too far down the rabbit hole to be redeemed). 

Broward is and has been pro-democrat for a while (I was wrong in my earlier assertion about it being conservative) so it's not at all a surprise that the majority of youngsters there are hipster liberals. In 2016, 68% of Broward voted Hillary so that alone is enough to understand why you've got so many kids with terrible opinions.


----------



## 2 Ton 21 (Dec 28, 2011)

No surprise they're going after the kids. You still have people harassing Sandy Hook parents years later for being part of the "hoax".


----------



## Lady Eastwood (Jul 10, 2006)

I honestly want someone to explain why Americans need guns.

I want a good answer, not some dumb horseshit such as 'protection'.

I am from America and live in Canada, it's a fucking SHOCK when a school gets shot up here, while it's just another day in America. I love America to death, but, come the fuck on, other countries are doing just fine without having to walk around with guns for fuck sakes, get the hell over the guns, these are KIDS getting shot to death in schools, if you don't feel any sort of outrage and think the only solution is making guns harder to get, but, still allowing people the right to bear arms, you're part of the goddamn problem. People in society are fucking looney, and people are pricks, it's no surprise some of these suspects are people who were bullied and just snapped one day or had to take meds for anxiety and whatnot. 

It's obvious that guns wont go away in America for a long time, if ever, and that is sad as fuck. I am a proud American, but, I feel embarrassed that America is frowned upon so badly over guns. If anyone wants more proof of how fucking ridiculous people are, *Florida lawmakers rejected a gun bill, but, voted that porn is a public health risk*. Go ahead and look this up, not making this shit up.

Read the bolded a few times and think about how stupid the rest of the world thinks America is, and rightfully so, when reading bullshit like that.

Stop hugging your guns and think about lives. Guns are meant to kill, they have no other purpose. Fucking gun nuts, YOUR kids could be the ones shot up in a school by some disgruntled cunt, what will you say then? Will that make you outraged, or, will you still be sucking the dick of your gun after putting your kid six feet under?

This shit is getting old, and, it's pathetic that it takes a group of CHILDREN to fight the adults over guns.


----------



## FITZ (May 8, 2007)

Glad there aren't any conspiracy theorists here about Hogg. Some just insanely stupid shit getting posted. I read a few youtube comments and it's painful. 

He made the local news in California for something stupid and not very political, or not political at all.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

Smarky Mark said:


> The lack of life experience ensures that children are the least knowledgeable people in the entire world. So it's kind of embarrassing when anyone, right or left, rallies around them for any kind of political points as if they're the ones we should all be paying attention to.
> 
> This march they're planning is a sham. There is no mission statement, no demands. All that they claim is that they want "gun control" without ever offering a solution themselves or describing what kind of laws they would like to see implemented. In other words no matter what legislation the govt offers in response it's not going to be enough and they will continue to whine and bitch.
> 
> Guarantee you that these marches won't feature any substantive discussions or ideas, just a bunch of angry people shouting profanities at Trump, celebrities looking for attention by playing 'woke' with the kiddies, and yes... probably some genuine moments of sadness and reflection.


Who gives a fuck if it gets people talking, what a pathetic attitude you have.

The march is at the end of March and they're writing their position now. They're kids, they haven't sat around writing protest plans or changes to legislation in the hope one day they can be ready for a march.


----------



## squarebox (Nov 6, 2015)

Haven't read the last few pages yet so not sure if anyone has posted this, but this guy knows what's up:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-02-21/florida-shooting-us-gun-owner-destroys-his-rifle/9464708

A shame so many people refuse to follow the same lead.


----------



## Brov (Feb 22, 2018)

Hogg is the son of FBI official Trump criticized.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v...fter_denying_question_about_armed_guards.html



> Shooting Survivor: CNN Gave Me "Scripted Question" After Denying Question About Armed Guards
> 
> Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School student Colton Haab said he was approached by CNN to ask a question at.Wednesday night's town hall.but decided not to after the network gave him a "scripted question," quashing one he wrote himself. Haab, a member of the Junior ROTC.shielded students.while the school was under attack from the shooter, *said he was going to ask about using veterans as armed security guards. (CNN response below.)
> 
> ...


How many more times will CNN be exposed before people finally realize the truth about that network?


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/966470311330893824
Apparently what the media doesn't want you to see is that there are 2nd amendment advocates amongst the survivors as well.


----------



## Smarky Mark (Jan 3, 2017)

draykorinee said:


> *Who gives a fuck if it gets people talking, what a pathetic attitude you have.
> *
> The march is at the end of March and they're writing their position now. They're kids, they haven't sat around writing protest plans or changes to legislation in the hope one day they can be ready for a march.


A protest with no clear cause or objective is the equivalent of a child throwing a tantrum.

If they can rally around a specific set of demands that are logical and realistic in aim then that would be different, but I am betting that won't be the case.

Look at the women's march. It was a complete farce. This is a little more serious but I expect the same empty hooplah. You're already seeing the celebrities hopping on the bandwagon. It's a show.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

Smarky Mark said:


> A protest with no clear cause or objective is the equivalent of a child throwing a tantrum.
> 
> If they can rally around a specific set of demands that are logical and realistic in aim then that would be different, but I am betting that won't be the case.
> 
> Look at the women's march. It was a complete farce. This is a little more serious but I expect the same empty hooplah. You're already seeing the celebrities hopping on the bandwagon. It's a show.


Their initial objectives were very clear, this will not just be another school shooting and the discussion ends. They've already sat in front of the president, doing far more for that objective than anyone before them.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

Reap said:


> https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v...fter_denying_question_about_armed_guards.html
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What's the context of the photo. I see ten smiley people. I guess for parity they could put the photo of the hundreds attending a really with the tiny minority who didn't. Not sure how that helps second amendment advocates except to say you're position is a minority one.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

draykorinee said:


> What's the context of the photo. I see ten smiley people. I guess for parity they could put the photo of the hundreds attending a really with the tiny minority who didn't. Not sure how that helps second amendment advocates except to say you're position is a minority one.


It's only to combat the appearance of monolithic positions of the survivors. 

Basically what leftists pretty much always do is erase the existence of anyone that disagrees. I mean, obviously it's obvious that there will be teens and kids amongst the shooting survivors who are still pro-second amendment. What the context here is that their voices are as usual being ignored so they need a platform provided to them by conservatives to combat the appearance of "monotheistic" gun control advocacy from survivors. 

We see this in other areas too where conservative blacks, hispanics, minorities are regularly ignored and to use one of their own terms, further marginalized by the very media that pretends to be pro-minority.

For example, the so-called "women's march" _deliberately _excluded pro-life and conservative women. It just gives the appearance that there is agreement en masse of the leftist narrative despite the fact that the actual _majority _of women in America are _pro-life._ and even the pro-choice advocates are a majority in saying that the legality of abortion should be limited. Only 29% of all Americans believe that abortion should be legal in all circumstances - but the impression is that the majority of americans are pro-choice ... However, when you examine what pro-choice means, they are grossly differing opinions. And so on and so forth. 

This works in the leftists' favor in creating false perceptions. An example of this is that while gays only make up 4-7% of the population, the majority of Americans now falsely believe that gays are about 20-25% of the population. Through over-exposure of a minority or a minority view-point they create the perception that the minority is larger than it really is. Hence the counter narrative is extremely important to be established.

*So, to make a long story short, hundreds attending a rally are in no way an indicator of who's the actual minority or who's the actual majority. * For years poll after poll has shown that millennials are less likely to support gun control. So what the leftists are "successfully" doing is pretending that more millennials support gun control and outside observers like yourself are being hoodwinked by this propaganda. 

The next generation is much more conservative than even the millennials and the millennials are actually less liberal than my generation. America is heading towards conservativism, so they need to create false impressions in order to "sell" liberalism to the younger generation.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

Reap said:


> It's only to combat the appearance of monolithic positions of the survivors.
> 
> Basically what lefties pretty much always do is erase the existence of anyone that disagrees. I mean, obviously it's obvious that there will be teens and kids amongst the shooting survivors who are still pro-second amendment. What the context here is that their voices are as usual being ignored so they need a platform provided to them by conservatives to combat the appearance of "monotheistic" gun control advocacy from survivors.
> 
> We see this in other areas too where conservative blacks, hispanics, minorities are regularly ignored and to use one of their own terms, further marginalized by the very media that pretends to be pro-minority.


Yeah, I remember when a muslim attacked Americans Fox news immediately talked about immigration reform yet when someone with a gun kills someone its always too early to politicise it. We all know that the right care so much about media bias just like the left.

Yes, I whataboutism'd it, but fundamentally you have an biased media, you have to deal with that unfortuanetly and expecting fair representation from liberal media is as pointless as expecting Fox News or Sean Hannity to give a nice opinion on left wingers.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

draykorinee said:


> Yeah, I remember when a muslim attacked Americans Fox news immediately talked about immigration reform yet when someone with a gun kills someone its always too early to politicise it. We all know that the right care so much about media bias just like the left.


The difference is that everyone accepts that when an individual does it, there's something wrong with the individual and his beliefs. No one on the right denies that there is something wrong with the individual. The right acknowledges that there will always be mad men amongst us and the right actually acknowledges repeatedly that almost all massacres are a result of failed systems. Either it's a failure of society to protect, society to detect, society to raise a decent human being. Rightists try to determine the answer to what created the monster on a case to case basis. Meanwhile, the left just goes "Duh ... it's the gun's fault" 

This guy was visited 39 times by local cops and tipped off to the FBI twice. 

The previous shooters all got guns because the system that was in place to prevent them from getting guns failed. 

The difference is that for the left when school shooters do it, it's somehow the gun's fault but never the mad man. 

Why don't these shootings occur at Private Schools. All 33k of them in America and not a single shooting ever. What is it about government schooling that is creating the mass shooters? 

I've already shown that there is literally no connection between gun ownership and homicides at all quite well in this thread. 



> Yes, I whataboutism'd it, but fundamentally you have an biased media, you have to deal with that unfortuanetly and expecting fair representation from liberal media is as pointless as expecting Fox News or Sean Hannity to give a nice opinion on left wingers.


Yeah. And why I post what I post that's contrary to the biased media. I have no clue why you and other leftists think that I watch/listen to Fox news or even imply that I do. When was the last time I ever quoted anything from Fox or Hannity ... I simply enjoy Tucker for the entertainment. 

I'm probably the only guy on this site that has posted material from left and right sources. The idea that somehow I buy into the right's propaganda machine and that somehow I'm unaware of it just because I'm a right winger myself is getting really tiresome. I dispise authoritarian rightists as much as I do leftists and I've had to repeat myself at least a dozen times, but somehow I always have to end up defending myself against stupid insinuations.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

Reap said:


> For years poll after poll has shown that millennials are less likely to support gun control.


I put barely any stock in polls, but that has evolved massively in just the last year so I don't agree with this 

http://survivalandprosperity.com/20...o-control-congress-stricter-gun-control-laws/

This poll showed far more support for stricter gun control than just 4 years ago.



> 7. 61% of young Americans believe gun laws should be more strict, representing a marked change since 2013 when less than half (49%) felt the same way.


http://iop.harvard.edu/youth-poll/fall-2017-poll

Millenials political positions, in my opinion, are far more fluid than any others, 5 years ago 49% of millenials wanted more gun control now its 61%


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

draykorinee said:


> I put barely any stock in polls, but that has evolved massively in just the last year so I don't agree with this
> 
> http://survivalandprosperity.com/20...o-control-congress-stricter-gun-control-laws/
> 
> ...


Initial glance at the Harvard poll you posted reveals that they have not given their sampling. I'm rejecting that on that basis at the moment. You'll have to find me a better/more reliable poll. Harvard given it's recent exposure to extreme SJW leftism has become a source that I view with great skepticism.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

Reap said:


> Yeah. And why I post what I post that's contrary to the biased media. I have no clue why you and other leftists think that I watch/listen to Fox news or even imply that I do. When was the last time I ever quoted anything from Fox or Hannity ... I simply enjoy Tucker for the entertainment.


I did't say you did either of those things. I definitely didn't imply it either.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

draykorinee said:


> I did't say you did either of those things. I definitely didn't imply it either.


Well, when you state the obvious to someone who's expressly aware of it, you make the other person wonder why you're bringing it up in the first place and the answer that came to me was "it's probably cuz he thinks I worship those guys" :Shrug 

Anyways, I'm looking for the sampling of the IOP poll, and I can't find it anywhere. What kind of "research" or even "poll" makes it so hard to find their sample?


----------



## The Sheik (Jul 10, 2017)

The scary thing is. School shootings are going to continue to happen until one of these fucking idiots does something about it.. It happens way too often now.. Don't just sit there and bitch about it, someone think of a solution. All they do is complain, but nobody does anything.

Kids shouldn't be afraid of going to school.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

Reap said:


> Initial glance at the Harvard poll you posted reveals that they have not given their sampling. I'm rejecting that on that basis at the moment. You'll have to find me a better/more reliable poll. Harvard given it's recent exposure to extreme SJW leftism has become a source that I view with great skepticism.


Slide 2 gives the sampling statistics, 2037 18-29 year olds nationally. There is more but I can't copy and paste because its on google slides. Says about non college etc.

Doesn't specifically mention ethnicity etc.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

draykorinee said:


> Slide 2 gives the sampling statistics, 2037 18-29 year olds nationally. There is more but I can't copy and paste because its on google slides. Says about non college etc.
> 
> Doesn't specifically mention ethnicity etc.


There's no where near enough information. Also, N=2000. Heh. I know most polls are even worse than this one but this one's bad. It should give a complete breakdown of its sample. 

The thing that bothers me is that they're claiming that according to their sample 39% of young republicans are fearful of the future, but then attributing that to the fact that they're fearful the current government, and not of the fact that republicans in general don't want the country to return to liberalism and that's part of their fear .. meanwhile the fear of liberals is more acute related directly to the current government. They're relying on perceptions of what they're asking and conventional wisdom, but there's no objectivity in the questions themselves. 

You can also sort of glean the bias of the questioners themselves in that they threw NRA's favorability in there without even knowing that the NRA is actually not a major lobby group, nor is it a CPAC. NRA is made up for 5 million regular American gun-owners. However, the perception is that NRA is a _major_ lobby group or organization with _deep _pockets. 

It's kinda like a very large version of a membership club which donates relatively small amounts to politicians. It has nowhere near the lobbying power of even Planned Parenthood which quite literally uses tax payer money to lobby politicians. The NRA is a poor lobby group compared to the giants that push for other policies. 

The majority of the power held by the NRA is actually fundamentally held by Americans themselves. They are not preventing the majority from achieving their goals when in fact the majority of Americans continue to support the 2nd Amendment. 

The questions on gun control: 










These questions are really poorly worded. 

Also, look at the first graph and help me decipher it. 

2013: 
49% wanted them stricter
15% wanted them less strict
36% wanted them unchanged

2017:
61% want them stricter
9% want them less strict
30% want them unchanged

Fair enough. However, there is a fundamental flaw here in defining what the subjective criteria is trying to measure. It is based on a perception of what's "more strict" and what's "less strict". They seem like they were never objectively defined as actual laws. I think if they actually defined them with some sort of objective measure, the responses would likely be very different. 

I can conclude however, that both the study as well as its reporting is very grossly limited in scope. This is why I prefer Gallup still and I do use Gallup to change my mind if my perception is wrong about something. 

In any case, it is interesting to look at. I don't think this study adequately proves much in the end though.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

https://www.lifezette.com/polizette...-congress-ignores-even-stronger-liberal-pacs/



> *Gillibrand Sees NRA ‘Chokehold on Congress,’ Ignores Even Stronger Liberal PACs*
> 
> National Rifle Association spent $54.4M in 2016 on political contributions, *but progressive Priorities USA spent $133.4M — who has more influence on Capitol Hill?*
> 
> ...


Outspent 7-1 by progressives but yeah, the NRA is the monster creating all these roadblocks with all that money. So she says that it's all about that money having power, but then libs and progressives have been consistently outspending conservatives and apparently a small fry like the NRA (just like the 13 russians) hold all the power. 

Bull.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

Getting money out of politics is a must and the dems are a disgrace and hypocrites in this instance.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

draykorinee said:


> Getting money out of politics is a must and the dems are a disgrace and hypocrites in this instance.


Seriously. Get money out of politics and there are no candidates. Government collapses :hb


----------



## Cabanarama (Feb 21, 2009)




----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

https://t.co/SEWi0lMp9Q?amp=1

.... I no longer have anything left to argue .... This is a disaster of epic proportions.


----------



## Cabanarama (Feb 21, 2009)

Reap said:


> https://t.co/SEWi0lMp9Q?amp=1
> 
> .... I no longer have anything left to argue .... This is a disaster of epic proportions.


This is just another example of the "good guy with a gun" argument is bullshit just like everything else the NRA/ 2A terrorists spout...


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

Cabanarama said:


> This is just another example of the "good guy with a gun" argument is bullshit just like everything else the NRA/ 2A terrorists spout...


Except when good guys with guns do save people. 

Doesn't mean that there should never be security provided by guns either. You should stop seeing the world in black and white. Theres a lot of middle ground positions that can be worked out.


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

The obvious solution is to hand out guns to school children and teach them how to use them during a mass shooting. There are more good children than bad children. :troll


----------



## Cabanarama (Feb 21, 2009)

Reap said:


> Except when good guys with guns do save people.
> 
> Doesn't mean that there should never be security provided by guns either. You should stop seeing the world in black and white. Theres a lot of middle ground positions that can be worked out.



Thing is cost to adequately provide armed security at every public school in the country would cost in the tens of billions of dollars annually. Even so, if I thought this would actually stop these mass shootings and save kids lives, I would support it. But I just don't see it being that effective.
Hell, there's been mass shootings on Military bases (Fort Hood, Washington Navy Yard), and even there where you have the premises filled with armed and active military that are trained for combat they couldn't stop those mass shootings, so how do you expect having armed security to prevent these school shootings from happening?
And then why stop at schools? What about colleges? Do we have armed guards patrol every building and every public gathering space on every college campus? Every shopping mall and movie theatre? Every busy intersection or public place that tends to draw a lot of people? 
Honestly, if you're looking for short term solutions, you're barking up the wrong tree. Nothing we do now will have any immediate effect. Anything that would actually curb the number of mass shootings or gun deaths in general will take years to actually see effect. We need to look at things as if, what can we do now so that in 10, 20, 30 years, possibly beyond that, the rate of gun violence in this country will be much lower than it is now.


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/966846679784837120
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v...fter_denying_question_about_armed_guards.html

Is this kid a crisis actor too? Or shouldn't be asked to comment on guns because he is just a kid? Or is he bought by the Kochs to further a political agenda? Was the kid coached to say this? What other deflections from conservative news outlets on the other survivors did I miss out? :lmao


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

As I've been saying, the fucking thugs protect their own, but it's OMG MADNESS to want armed security to protect children:

http://www.businessinsider.com/park...ns-deputies-sent-to-protect-his-family-2018-2



> *Armed police are guarding the home of the deputy who resigned over his lack of action in the Parkland school shooting*
> 
> Deputies from the Palm Beach County Sheriff's office are guarding the home of the school resource officer who was stationed at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School after his family requested the protection, according to multiple news reports on Thursday.
> 
> ...


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

This does beg the question though, is a shooting does happen, how many teachers are prepared to actively hunt down and engage a shooter? If a trained officer won't do it do we expect teachers to leave the classroom they're protecting to go hunt?

Putting a gun in the hands of 20% of teachers and you may get lucky that on that day the teacher is on shift and is in the right place and is just a good enough shot to take down a kid armed with multiple semi automatics. 

I don't see most of these shooters being put off by the slim chances this happens, how many of them actually want to survive anyways (I know this guy did)


----------



## samizayn (Apr 25, 2011)

It's super poetic that the man who entered the law enforcement profession, that reckoned himself the kind of person equipped to 'protect and serve' his community had this response, while our so-called children were the ones risking their lives in the hopes of saving their classmates.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...ets-hospital-visit-broward-sheriff/350456002/



> A gofundme account set up for Anthony's family says the soccer player was able to save about 20 other students by attempting to close and lock a classroom door as the gunman drew closer.
> 
> Fellow student Carlos Rodriguez told ABC News that Anthony saved his life. When the gunfire erupted, Carlos said classmates rushed to hide in the classroom. Anthony was the last one to duck into the room and was trying to close and lock the door when he was shot, Carlos said.
> 
> ...


He will live, but others weren't so lucky.

I say this with fullest sympathy to the sheriff, btw.


----------



## Eva MaRIHyse (Jun 20, 2014)

If there's no point in gun control because people will just find other means to kill then is there any point in fighting breast cancer when people just die of lung cancer, ovarian cancer, bowl cancer, getting hit by a car, etc?



Reap said:


> As I've been saying, the fucking thugs protect their own, but it's OMG MADNESS to want armed security to protect children:
> 
> http://www.businessinsider.com/park...ns-deputies-sent-to-protect-his-family-2018-2


It is madness. You shouldn't have to have armed guards at a god damn school of all places. It also doesnt solve anything, it wont stop mass shootings at cinemas, churches, etc. In a country where a lot of its citizens love to proclaim "Murica is the greatest country on Earth" you shouldn't have armed guards at every school. There's serious issues in the American psyche that need to be addressed.

You're also asking a lot of someone to storm a class room and kill some kid armed with a semi automatic gun.

There have been mass shootings at Army bases as well. Army bases full of armed and trained killers...and still one lone lunatic has been able to kill multiple people.


----------



## Bushmaster (Sep 28, 2010)

Pretty sad, you have teachers and even students making the ultimate sacrifice and this guy who is getting paid to stop or prevent shit like this is outside doing nothing. I’m listeni about it on the radio and these guys are wondering if he’ll even get his pension.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

draykorinee said:


> This does beg the question though, is a shooting does happen, how many teachers are prepared to actively hunt down and engage a shooter? If a trained officer won't do it do we expect teachers to leave the classroom they're protecting to go hunt?
> 
> Putting a gun in the hands of 20% of teachers and you may greet lucky that on that day the teacher is on shift and is in the right place and is just a good enough shot to take down a kid armed with multiple semi automatics.
> 
> I don't see most of these shooters being put off by the slim chances this happens, how many of them actually want to survive anyways (I know this guy did)





Eva MaRIHyse said:


> If there's no point in gun control because people will just find other means to kill then is there any point in fighting breast cancer when people just die of lung cancer, ovarian cancer, bowl cancer, getting hit by a car, etc?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


33k private schools. No shootings. Explain.


----------



## Stinger Fan (Jun 21, 2006)

Eva MaRIHyse said:


> If there's no point in gun control because people will just find other means to kill then is there any point in fighting breast cancer when people just die of lung cancer, ovarian cancer, bowl cancer, getting hit by a car, etc?


That's quite the false equivalency you've managed to make there .


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

Reap said:


> 33k private schools. No shootings. Explain.


98,000 schools have 90% of the students. 33,000 schools have 10% of the students. Better teacher to pupil ratio. Better pastoral care. Different demographics. Better mental health services. Better security (not just armed but fencing and cctv etc). A myriad of potential reasons outside of the teacher having a gun.

90% of students committing 100% of the crime is hardly a surprising ratio, especially as that crime is particularly small, the chances of a school shooting are really quite miniscule.

Interestingly 80% of private school students attend a religious school. So maybe Orton had a point and the causation is actually god?

Maybe it's Allah, ever heard of a Muslim school being shot up?

Fwiw if you're not going to tackle ownership of guns in the us then just fucking arm everyone and anyone, what does it matter? I don't oppose armed guards in the scenario where gun control is ignored.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

draykorinee said:


> 98,000 schools have 90% of the students. *33,000 schools have 10% of the students. Better teacher to pupil ratio. Better pastoral care. Different demographics. Better mental health services. Better security (not just armed but fencing and cctv etc). A myriad of potential reasons outside of the teacher having a gun.*
> 
> 90% of students committing 100% of the crime is hardly a surprising ratio, especially as that crime is particularly small, the chances of a school shooting are really quite miniscule.
> 
> Interestingly 80% of private school students attend a religious school. So maybe Orton had a point and the causation is actually god?


Great analysis. 

Now let's replicate those conditions for "public schools" or do away with public schools entirely and privatise the entire school industry so that those conditions can be replicated for the entire society.


----------



## DMD Mofomagic (Jun 9, 2017)

Eva MaRIHyse said:


> If there's no point in gun control because people will just find other means to kill then is there any point in fighting breast cancer when people just die of lung cancer, ovarian cancer, bowl cancer, getting hit by a car, etc?


The problem with that statement is what do you want to change about gun control? People keep saying AR-15, but there are plenty f guns that are much more dangerous, and that aren't on the cover of CoD.



> It is madness. You shouldn't have to have armed guards at a god damn school of all places. It also doesnt solve anything, it wont stop mass shootings at cinemas, churches, etc. In a country where a lot of its citizens love to proclaim "Murica is the greatest country on Earth" you shouldn't have armed guards at every school. There's serious issues in the American psyche that need to be addressed.


Why is this madness? I would rather there be armed guards at my kids school than at some senator's house. 

I hate the "You shouldn't have to" argument. Guess what, I shouldn't have to be good looking and rich to have a better chance with women, but I do. 

At some point, we have to realize that safety is more imporatant than feeling good.



> You're also asking a lot of someone to storm a class room and kill some kid armed with a semi automatic gun.


This is where gun advocates have field days with people.

Every gun is semi automatic. All semi automatic means is that when you press the trigger, a bullet comes out, and another one goes into a chamber.

Handguns are semi-automatic. I get where you are coming from, but trained professionals can do damage with guns, period.



> There have been mass shootings at Army bases as well. Army bases full of armed and trained killers...and still one lone lunatic has been able to kill multiple people.


There are more handgun murders in high drug trafficking area than anywhere, yet people want to stop the "Stop and frisk" laws. 

The point is that NOTHING will stop evil. It is in the world, for whatever reason. But I think there is a side that wants us to be prepared for it. I don't think that is too much to ask


----------



## Solf (Aug 24, 2014)

I'm sure all the keyboard warriors on here would've been eager to throw out their lives like it was nothing and enter that building to go after a lunatic armed to the teeth.

Yeah, this is a cop, and he's supposed to serve and protect. But we should consider him being an human as well and scared shitless nonetheless. It doesn't make him some kind of monster who just chose to stand there to enjoy the carnage. He just froze and was fearing for his life. It's called instinct of self-preservation.

You can call people who manage to go against it heroes, but you can't call everyone who can't trash. This guy probably was there, cowering, thinking about the fact that he might not see his family ever again if he went into the damn building.


----------



## Smarky Mark (Jan 3, 2017)

draykorinee said:


> Their initial objectives were very clear, this will not just be another school shooting and the discussion ends. They've already sat in front of the president, doing far more for that objective than anyone before them.


Here is a piece from WP with the 'organizers' of this protest.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...4161111ace0_story.html?utm_term=.2629f25fe66f

- No mission statement
- No demands
- No invitation for discussion

But hey they already have performers booked and a planned demonstration where they intend to destroy a bunch of unloaded assault rifles. So yea it looks like these kids are really serious about getting things done!

Please GTFO with this nonsense. 

It's not even just the right wing blogs anymore. If you look at almost any video on youtube in which David Hogg and the bald chick are featured, almost everyone that is commenting is suspicious of them being plants.

Because anyone with common sense could see that these kids aren't genuinely looking for answers. All they do is go on TV and spew the DNC's scripted rhetoric. They even go *out of their way* to defend the FBI (which is very weird). They shout divisive things like "protect guns or protect children". As if the conversation is nearly that black and white. You should be smart enough to see through this. People truly interested in conversation and change do not carry on like this.

The bald chick is always in character. Always angry, always pouting. The Hogg kid always stuttering and looking off screen whenever he talks about policy. I Guarantee you these kids didn't even know what the 2nd amendment was a year ago.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

Solf said:


> I'm sure all the keyboard warriors on here would've been eager to throw out their lives like it was nothing and enter that building to go after a lunatic armed to the teeth.
> 
> Yeah, this is a cop, and he's supposed to serve and protect. But we should consider him being an human as well and scared shitless nonetheless. It doesn't make him some kind of monster who just chose to stand there to enjoy the carnage. He just froze and was fearing for his life. It's called instinct of self-preservation.
> 
> You can call people who manage to go against it heroes, but you can't call everyone who can't trash. This guy probably was there, cowering, thinking about the fact that he might not see his family ever again if he went into the damn building.


 If you sign up for a job where putting your life on the line is part of your job, then that's your job. Otherwise don't be a police officer. Do something else.

----


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/967072490450309120


----------



## ipickthiswhiterose (Jul 22, 2017)

Just so that we're tallying here......Donald Trump: a man who just a week ago was claiming that mental health was paramount and needed to be a factor of major concern, is now publicly calling out and humiliating in front of the world's press a man who is currently trying to deal with 17 dead people on his conscience.


----------



## Cabanarama (Feb 21, 2009)

Solf said:


> I'm sure all the keyboard warriors on here would've been eager to throw out their lives like it was nothing and enter that building to go after a lunatic armed to the teeth.
> 
> Yeah, this is a cop, and he's supposed to serve and protect. But we should consider him being an human as well and scared shitless nonetheless. It doesn't make him some kind of monster who just chose to stand there to enjoy the carnage. He just froze and was fearing for his life. It's called instinct of self-preservation.
> 
> You can call people who manage to go against it heroes, but you can't call everyone who can't trash. This guy probably was there, cowering, thinking about the fact that he might not see his family ever again if he went into the damn building.


We should not lose focus, and stay onto the fact that the only reason why this guy is being scrutinized like he is from the gun advocates who are trying to shift away from the gun argument, b

But that being said, i find it hard to condemn the guy when I wouldn't have done any better in this situation. And I would say pretty much most others here would be full of shit if they said they would have handled things differently. If he had gone in there and tried to actually take down the shooter, whether he succeeded or failed (most likely the latter), he would have been rightly hailed as a hero. A hero is someone that goes above what a normal person would do in this situation.

But again, this is a deflection by the gun advocates to deflect away from the blood on their own hands (the fact that they are finally being held accountable is the lone silver lining to this awful situation). And to deflect from the fact that there was an armed guard on campus and that failed to stop the shooter...

Just like how Columbine, like Stoneman Douglas, had armed security on campus at the time of the shooting . 
Just like how the Pulse nightclub had armed security present at the time of the shooting
Just like how there was plenty of armed security at that concert in Vegas
Just like how the guy across the street who went after the shooter with the AR-15, whom the right was touting to support their bullshit "good guy with a gun argument" failed to actually save a single life in that church
Just like how Fort Hood and the Washingon Naval Base were both filled with armed and active military that are trained for combat, and even that couldn't stop the shootings like happen.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

The trained police are cowards and incompetent, the FBI are useless, so let's arm teachers instead. They're a safer bet for sure.

Being promulgated by the same people.


----------



## Cabanarama (Feb 21, 2009)

draykorinee said:


> The trained police are cowards and incompetent, the FBI are useless, so let's arm teachers instead. They're a safer bet for sure.
> 
> Being promulgated by the same people.


Again, anything to deflect from having any real substantial gun reform done. They're running scared and trying to find anything to stop this argument. The NRA for the first time is actually being accountable for all the blood they have on their hands, and they're doing everything to try to stop that... throwing bread crumbs by conceding on things that even most pro gun people are in favor of (i.e. expanded universal background checks) hoping it will satisfy enough gun control advocates that they'll go away . Offering nonsensical solutions in place of actual gun reform having TSA like measures at schools, arming teachers), attacking, mocking, smearing, bullying, and discrediting survivors, shifting the blame to whoever they can such as the FBI and the police office, etc.

Speaking of which, it's funny how the right always claims to be so pro law enforcement and push the "Blue Lives Matter" garbage, yet they are so quick to turn on law enforcement/ throw them under the bus when their agenda calls for it... It's ironic that the same people that are bashing Peterson for buckling over pressure are the same people that would adamantly defend him if he actually shot and killed an unarmed person when there was nobody in any actual danger because of the so called rigors, pressure, and danger of the job.

But again, it's all a deflection to try to get away from the gun debate. It's the go to tactic for the modern American right: when you can't win an argument, deflect, deflect, deflect....


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

Smarky Mark said:


> Here is a piece from WP with the 'organizers' of this protest.
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...4161111ace0_story.html?utm_term=.2629f25fe66f
> 
> ...


Sounds like they are to be honest. Not sure how you think they're not when they've got all that planned already.



> It's not even just the right wing blogs anymore. If you look at almost any video on youtube in which David Hogg and the bald chick are featured, almost everyone that is commenting is suspicious of them being plants.


Yes the conspiracy theorists are in full retard mode, i've seen people accuse him of being an actor and saying no kids died. Its Sandy Hook conspiracy fucktards all over again. Youtube comments is a terrible place to base anything on, I laugh.



> Because anyone with common sense could see that these kids aren't genuinely looking for answers. All they do is go on TV and spew the DNC's scripted rhetoric. They even go *out of their way* to defend the FBI (which is very weird). They shout divisive things like "protect guns or protect children". As if the conversation is nearly that black and white. You should be smart enough to see through this. People truly interested in conversation and change do not carry on like this.


I think protect our guns or protect children is a fantastic chant, its emotive and hits exactly where you need for maximum impact. Its like that Haab kid who accused CNN of giving him a script yet went on Fox News and never backed that up. He knew full well the power of his words by saying they wanted to script him and the attention he would get from the right.



> The bald chick is always in character. Always angry, always pouting. The Hogg kid always stuttering and looking off screen whenever he talks about policy. I Guarantee you these kids didn't even know what the 2nd amendment was a year ago.


Kids act like they normally do. Damn.

So convinced.


----------



## Cabanarama (Feb 21, 2009)

Smarky Mark said:


> Here is a piece from WP with the 'organizers' of this protest.
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...4161111ace0_story.html?utm_term=.2629f25fe66f
> 
> ...


I know you don't give a shit about kids being slaughtered, but you gotta at least cool it with the tinfoil hat shit and realize that all those mocking, attacking, and discrediting the survivors and those affected by the shooting is a depraved low from the right (which I didn't think was possible) out of desperation because the NRA terrorists, Republicans, and pro gun advocates are finally being held responsible for the blood on their hands from the hundreds of thousands of those murdered thanks to inadequate gun laws as a result of their distortion of the constitution, pathological lies, and buying off the Republican party

And this is a black and white issue. Either you're from sweeping gun reform, or you don't care about the rampant gun violence in this country, even if it's children. Honestly, anyone that puts their desire to hold on to their dangerous toys over the lives of tens of thousands of Americans every year is a sick fuck.

And the fact you cite the YouTube comments section? You realize that on nearly every video that is remotely political it is probably filled 90% with alt-right supremacists, conspiracy theorists, and trolls. So that is not a good basic to go off of.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

Cabanarama said:


> deflect, deflect, deflect....


Trump is blaming video games and movies now ><

Japan are the mentalists fucks when it comes to media and games yet only 6 gun deaths a year, so maybe he has a point. :hmmm


----------



## Cabanarama (Feb 21, 2009)

draykorinee said:


> Trump is blaming video games and movies now ><
> 
> Japan are the mentalists fucks when it comes to media and games yet only 6 gun deaths a year, so maybe he has a point. :hmmm


It's nice to know that some things haven't changed since Fox News put all the blame for Columbine on Marilyn Manson...

The saddest part Was Trump actually called for movies and video games to have rating systems...


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

Cabanarama said:


> It's nice to know that some things haven't changed since Fox News put all the blame for Columbine on Marilyn Manson...
> 
> The saddest part Was Trump actually called for movies and video games to have rating systems...


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

draykorinee said:


> snip




@draykorinee --- Since you posted the graph above that debunks the idea that there is a relationship between video games and violence, then why did you not change your mind about guns when i posted a similar graph which shows that there is no relationship between gun ownership and homicides?


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

Reap said:


> @draykorinee --- Since you posted the graph above that debunks the idea that there is a relationship between video games and violence, then why did you not change your mind about guns when i posted a similar graph which shows that there is no relationship between gun ownership and homicides?


The one graph doesn't totally debunk the relationship but it doesn't help the agenda, the studies by multiple places added with the statistics helps debunk it. 

The problem with guns is, there are a million graphs and studies each making its own point and none of them debunking either position. For example this study concludes with



> We observed a robust correlation between higher levels of gun ownership and higher firearm homicide rates. Although we could not determine causation, we found that states with higher rates of gun ownership had disproportionately large numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides.


This is old now and I'm not using just that to base my position on, but your one graph is just one piece of the information out there.

Plus we always have to be careful with causation and correlation fallacies, of which my graph would absolutely be at risk of that.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

Fair response. 



draykorinee said:


> The one graph doesn't totally debunk the relationship but it doesn't help the agenda, the studies by multiple places added with the statistics helps debunk it.
> 
> The problem with guns is, there are a million graphs and studies each making its own point and none of them debunking either position. For example this study concludes with
> 
> ...


Here's what I think. Video games CAN be a motivating factor in a particular shooter. Just as easy access to a gun can allow a particular shooter to shoot that may not have been able to without a gun. Meanwhile, millions of people are neither motivated by games, nor motivated by easy access to guns. 

Therefore, both arguments are flawed in their attempts to generalize to the entire population as a whole.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

Reap said:


> Fair response.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


100% Agree. There may well be people affected by violent games, there are reasons why I don't let my kids play too many. There is evidence to suggest that short term, violent games can increase aggression.

I've sent a controller at the tv on many an occasion.


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

Smarky Mark said:


> Here is a piece from WP with the 'organizers' of this protest.
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...4161111ace0_story.html?utm_term=.2629f25fe66f
> 
> ...


So are Coltan Haab and Ariana Klein also not genuine and simply going on TV to spew the GOP's scripted rhetoric on Fox?


----------



## 2 Ton 21 (Dec 28, 2011)

draykorinee said:


> Trump is blaming video games and movies now ><
> 
> Japan are the mentalists fucks when it comes to media and games yet only 6 gun deaths a year, so maybe he has a point. :hmmm




__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/966745055565438976
Did he seriously say there should be a rating system for movies?


----------



## Lady Eastwood (Jul 10, 2006)

Solf said:


> I'm sure all the keyboard warriors on here would've been eager to throw out their lives like it was nothing and enter that building to go after a lunatic armed to the teeth.
> 
> Yeah, this is a cop, and he's supposed to serve and protect. But we should consider him being an human as well and scared shitless nonetheless. It doesn't make him some kind of monster who just chose to stand there to enjoy the carnage. He just froze and was fearing for his life. It's called instinct of self-preservation.
> 
> You can call people who manage to go against it heroes, but you can't call everyone who can't trash. This guy probably was there, cowering, thinking about the fact that he might not see his family ever again if he went into the damn building.



Then don't be a fucking cop if you're not going to risk your life to save others.

Stop making excuses, this is why we have cops, this is what they are trained for, they are no longer 'regular citizens' when on duty, they are required to act.

Get out of here with this shitty post of yours.


----------



## skypod (Nov 13, 2014)

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/cnn-releases-emails-to-combat-charges-of-giving-student-scripted-questions-at-gun-town-hall/article/2649936 


So it turns out the kids father edited an email and ran to FOX news with it, and CNN only wanted the kid to stick to a question (a pro-gun one keep in mind) that he had already submitted and discussed on the phone with them. 



Also as far as the police failing to stop the shooter earlier, I am all for anyone involved resigning and investigations taking place. There should be more of a culture for sheriffs, politicians etc resigning in the US. If you fuck up don't wait for it to blow over, you leave your position because you failed the public.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

Not 1 but 4 cops didn't do anything while the shooting was going on. Kid had 39 cop visits. 2 FBI tips. You're fucking kidding me right?


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

skypod said:


> http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/c...ed-questions-at-gun-town-hall/article/2649936
> 
> 
> So it turns out the kids father edited an email and ran to FOX news with it, and CNN only wanted the kid to stick to a question (a pro-gun one keep in mind) that he had already submitted and discussed on the phone with them.
> ...


Yep, Haab and his father lied and manipulated the press.


----------



## Cabanarama (Feb 21, 2009)

draykorinee said:


> Yep, Haab and his father lied and manipulated the press.


Just the fact that they went on Fox News should have destroyed their credibility right then and there...


----------



## Cabanarama (Feb 21, 2009)

Reap said:


> Not 1 but 4 cops didn't do anything while the shooting was going on.


While these cops should be held accountable, those on the right are only bringing this up to divert attention away from from the heat the NRA terrorists and their GOP puppets are receiving and the calls for gun reform. 
Not to mention they're deflecting with something that completely debunks the good guy with a gun argument and shows how useless their idea of having armed guards on campus actually is... 



> Kid had 39 cop visits. 2 FBI tips. You're fucking kidding me right?


This is another reason to blame the NRA terrorists...There was a federal mandate passed as part of the Brady Bill, that these kinds of things must be submitted to the background registry, which the NRA terrorists took to the Supreme Court to get repealed and left it up to the states and municipalities to do so, making it optional. 
The NRA terrorists have ripped so many holes in the background check system that it has enabled guys like this shooter and the Sutherland Springs shooter to pass the background checks needed to buy guns. And then to top it off, that depraved sociopathic cunt Dana Loesch actually had the nerve to complain about the holes in the background system the terrorist organization she works for created (also ignoring the fact that they've fought tooth and nail against any sort of background checks despite the fact that even most conservatives and Republicans are overwhelmingly in favor of it).


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

At the same time it can be argued that it is liberal attitudes towards criminals that keep them out of lockup where they belong. This guy wasn't saved by the NRA anymore than he was saved by the entire intelligence community.

It is a matter of people who are hired to do a job quite literally not doing their jobs. The NRA is for lack of gun control. It is not there to keep violent criminals with that many infractions out of jail. Largely easy on criminals is a liberal attitude


----------



## 2 Ton 21 (Dec 28, 2011)

Was thinking about the giving teachers guns thing. Are they going to keep it secret? It just seems like if a shooter did know which teachers were carrying, that'd be their first victim. Just walk up behind them in the hall before they even know what's happening.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

2 Ton 21 said:


> Was thinking about the giving teachers guns thing. Are they going to keep it secret? It just seems like if a shooter did know which teachers were carrying, that'd be their first victim. Just walk up behind them in the hall before they even know what's happening.


Yeah, they'd have to keep it secret, I'm not sure how well you can hide the gun and still have it handy.

Lots of companies backing away from the NRA, no doubt this is those nasty liberuls fault.


----------



## Solf (Aug 24, 2014)

Catalanotto said:


> Then don't be a fucking cop if you're not going to risk your life to save others.
> 
> Stop making excuses, this is why we have cops, this is what they are trained for, they are no longer 'regular citizens' when on duty, they are required to act.
> 
> Get out of here with this shitty post of yours.



Do you really fucking think a random regular cop's training include "how to survive during a mass shooting and how to kill a kid armed with an automatic rifle ?"

A regular cop in France, while geared with a gun, is basically there to put you in detention if you're driving under the influence. Plus, they're always in pair, covering each other in "stress situations", which aren't numerous.

No way anyone but elite, dedicated corps would intervene in those kind of situations, they'd only make it worse most of the time.

But then again, we don't get kids blowing up their school here, strangely enough 

Oh and here, have a look to how much that guy was trained for those kind of situations ->

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_resource_officer

Get real. And please. There's a difference between stopping a mugging and having to face a psychopath firing from all cylinders. Humans will be humans.


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

Reap said:


> At the same time it can be argued that it is liberal attitudes towards criminals that keep them out of lockup where they belong. This guy wasn't saved by the NRA anymore than he was saved by the entire intelligence community.
> 
> It is a matter of people who are hired to do a job quite literally not doing their jobs. The NRA is for lack of gun control. It is not there to keep violent criminals with that many infractions out of jail. Largely easy on criminals is a liberal attitude


Did the kid commit any crime prior to the shooting? Why is a liberal attitude towards criminals relevant towards law enforcement not taking freedom away from a kid for school behavioural issues?


----------



## Tag89 (Jul 27, 2014)

Solf said:


> I'm sure all the keyboard warriors on here would've been eager to throw out their lives like it was nothing and enter that building to go after a lunatic armed to the teeth.
> 
> Yeah, this is a cop, and he's supposed to serve and protect. But we should consider him being an human as well and scared shitless nonetheless. It doesn't make him some kind of monster who just chose to stand there to enjoy the carnage. He just froze and was fearing for his life. It's called instinct of self-preservation.
> 
> You can call people who manage to go against it heroes, but you can't call everyone who can't trash. This guy probably was there, cowering, thinking about the fact that he might not see his family ever again if he went into the damn building.


stopping a criminal with a gun is literally the job of a policer officer(s) who is/are also armed

terrible post


----------



## Stinger Fan (Jun 21, 2006)

2 Ton 21 said:


> Was thinking about the giving teachers guns thing. Are they going to keep it secret? It just seems like if a shooter did know which teachers were carrying, that'd be their first victim. Just walk up behind them in the hall before they even know what's happening.


It could have the opposite effect actually. If you think about it , they could also just as easily be thinking to avoid someone who could fight back. That's why the argument against making gun registry available to the public would be that criminals would look into which houses didn't have firearms and go there. And you can look at a lot of murders where victims are usually the most vulnerable position as they're easier targets. That's why if you advertise to be a gun free zone, theoretically you'd be an easier target because there'd be less resistance for the killer to do whatever they want.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

News coming out of the Sherrif's office 

"It wasn't 39 incidents, but only 23! STOP CALLING US INCOMPETENT!! 

(And Yeah, there were actual bolded and angry words in there). 

Oh fuck this sheriff's office. 

If something like that happened in Brevard (and I know Sheriff Ivey fairly well), he would be completely devastated and would resign gracefully after accepting responsibility instead of throwing tantrums and acting out like it wasn't his fault ... even when he and his deputies had every opportunity to prevent this. Then again, I also trust Ivey and his deputies to not be incompetent fucks. They run a tight ship and Brevard has fewer major incidents than most areas with the kind of demographics we have in Brevard.

---

Meanwhile in California (the land of the strictest gun laws in the country)

https://www.dailywire.com/news/2748...tm_content=092117-news&utm_campaign=dwtwitter


> Convicted Felon Amassed Huge Arsenal Of Self-Built Guns, Ammo
> 
> On Wednesday, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra announced that a convicted felon in California, who is banned from possessing firearms and ammunition, was arrested after law enforcement officials seized dozens of firearms and tens of thousands of rounds of ammunition from his home during a search for registered firearms that he had not turned into the government.
> 
> ...


What has not become the ultimate litmus test for the rest of us in mainland America, Californistan continues to resemble Pakistan's northern areas which are filled with Taliban warriors who can make their own guns and weapons --- a direct consequence of increased "gun control" (whatever gun control even means).


----------



## squarebox (Nov 6, 2015)

So apparently the children who were amongst it all and were lucky enough to survive last week's shooting are now getting death threats from NRA supporters. Just let that sink in for a minute.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

Reap said:


> News coming out of the Sherrif's office
> 
> "It wasn't 39 incidents, but only 23! STOP CALLING US INCOMPETENT!!
> 
> ...


They caught the guy with illegal guns purely because they were following up based on the gun control laws.

Yet the laws failed.

What?


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

squarebox said:


> So apparently the children who were amongst it all and were lucky enough to survive last week's shooting are now getting death threats from NRA supporters. Just let that sink in for a minute.


Wow. They really are comparative to PETA now.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

draykorinee said:


> They caught the guy with illegal guns purely because they were following up based on the gun control laws.
> 
> Yet the laws failed.
> 
> What?


That's what I thought at first. And it's always good that they once Ina while catch someone selling illegal drugs too. 

It's not who gets caught that is a barometer to justify the laws that are based on absolutism but who that doesn't.


----------



## samizayn (Apr 25, 2011)

Another campus shooting in Georgia. Unfortunately we will continue to have several case studies regarding what works and what has to change.


----------



## Undertaker23RKO (Jun 11, 2011)

samizayn said:


> Another campus shooting in Georgia. Unfortunately we will continue to have several case studies regarding what works and what has to change.


Ok, what works and what has to change? With several case studies of evidence.


----------



## samizayn (Apr 25, 2011)

ipickthiswhiterose said:


> Just so that we're tallying here......Donald Trump: a man who just a week ago was claiming that mental health was paramount and needed to be a factor of major concern, is now publicly calling out and humiliating in front of the world's press a man who is currently trying to deal with 17 dead people on his conscience.





Undertaker23RKO said:


> Ok, what works and what has to change? With several case studies of evidence.


Here I would defer to expertise.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

So, I went into a government building today (immigration related), and they made me take my Android Tablet and put it in the car for security reasons. 

Cell phones were allowed. 

These are the same people y'all think are capable of "regulating guns" 

:lmao :lmao :lmao :mj4


----------



## Smarky Mark (Jan 3, 2017)

www.marchforourlives.com



> Mission Statement
> 
> Not one more. We cannot allow one more child to be shot at school. We cannot allow one more teacher to make a choice to jump in front of a firing assault rifle to save the lives of students. We cannot allow one more family to wait for a call or text that never comes. Our schools are unsafe. Our children and teachers are dying. We must make it our top priority to save these lives.
> 
> ...



Empty platitudes. No specific demands whatsoever. How convenient.

If you can't see this for what it is then you're a mark. 

Don't forget to donate


----------



## Solf (Aug 24, 2014)

Reap said:


> So, I went into a government building today (immigration related), and they made me take my Android Tablet and put it in the car for security reasons.
> 
> Cell phones were allowed.
> 
> ...


This situation may indeed be stupid, but every single rich country excluding the US seemingly had no problem regulating guns 

Not wanting to troll, but I definately want to hear the pro-gun side's ideas, since no one can refute that gun control in aforementioned countries resulted in an homicide rate which is ten fold lower than the US's on average.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

I've given them in this thread.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

https://www.dailywire.com/news/2761...-says-he-was-given-stand-amanda-prestigiacomo



> *Parkland First Responder Says He Was Given Stand Down Order: 'I Could Have Saved Lives'*
> 
> A Parkland first responder claims he was told to stand down during crucial moments following the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, hypothesizing that he "could have saved lives" if he were allowed inside the building at that time.
> 
> ...


How can I fault conspiracy theorists for trying to rationalize away things as anything but gross incompetence. As humans we're program not to accept the simplest reason for why things happen and incompetence is really the only explanation here.


----------



## 2 Ton 21 (Dec 28, 2011)

https://apnews.com/d986a439fb1549b4b38a301b19ef4d4d/Shooting-survivor's-father-admits-email-changes-in-CNN-spat



> *Shooting survivor's father admits email changes in CNN spat*
> 
> The father of a Florida shooting survivor acknowledged Tuesday he omitted words in an email he sent media outlets accusing CNN of using scripted remarks at a town hall on guns and school safety.
> 
> ...


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

Smarky Mark said:


> www.marchforourlives.com
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So their mission is to get Congress to not ignore this again. I'm with them on that. It's not their job to write a bill.


----------



## 2 Ton 21 (Dec 28, 2011)




----------



## Smarky Mark (Jan 3, 2017)

draykorinee said:


> So their mission is to get Congress to not ignore this again. I'm with them on that. It's not their job to write a bill.


And what if congress writes a bill that isn't progressive enough? Then what? More protesting? 

By not being specific it grants them the license to cause a stir and protest regardless of what happens. In both instances they get the mainstream press and the millions in donations. 

Imagine I organized a protest called *WE NEED TO STOP EVIL*... and the mission statement was to "prevent evil people from doing evil things"... and anyone that opposed was accused of being in league with the evil people and not caring enough about the good people.

Because essentially that's what this, only they are masquerading under the disguise of 'gun control'.


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)




----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

Give them all guns!!!!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43217142


----------



## samizayn (Apr 25, 2011)

2 Ton 21 said:


>


FAUX NEWS TURNED REAL NEWS :CENA:



draykorinee said:


> Give them all guns!!!!
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43217142


:wtf2

Oh dear. 

The whole 'mental illness' ruse really gained popularity this time around but this is one case where I actually believe the man could be actually diagnosed with something. But that - thank goodness - has lead to 0 injured, 0 dead.


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Monterey-County-high-school-teacher-accidentally-12751275.php



> A teacher who also serves as a reserve police officer accidentally fired a gun inside a Seaside High School classroom Tuesday, police said, and three students were injured.
> 
> Dennis Alexander was teaching a course about gun safety for his Administration of Justice class when his gun went off at 1:20 p.m.
> 
> ...


Can't make this shit up.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

FriedTofu said:


> https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Monterey-County-high-school-teacher-accidentally-12751275.php
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Any new laws should see guns removed from cops. Let everyone else have them sure, but not cops.


----------

