How can you even type that with a clear diaper?
Yeah, if only those other guys were willing to compromise...
Another school shooting
- Thread starter Quavarius
- Start date
Speculation on what would have prevented something from happening yesterday is factual?
The NYT is entirely legit. There is bias in practically everything, but it doesn't compromise the integrity of the best outfits.
Eh, not really. The NY Times has been overly bias and boarderline down right fabrication when it comes to anything Trump supports.
What I’d really like to know is what gun legislation would have prevent this recent event?
Last edited:
Dat, you never compromise your left wing rubbish. Sorry, that is why we need the second amendment.How can you even type that with a clear diaper?
Yeah, if only those other guys were willing to compromise...
More money to the NRA.
This one isn't about President Trump. It's thoroughly sourced and supported.
What legislation would have prevented something that has already happened? I don't think that's a reasonable way to ask it unless you're going for rhetorical.
No one is claiming any laws will prevent every incident. It seems like every incident, though, the most extreme pro-gun people thwart any attempt at new legislation, then continue to use the rhetoric that nothing would have worked.
Well suggest the legislation. I know the majority leader of the Senate and will make damned sure it gets to him.
The only damned legislation that Chuck Schumer will support is revocation of the right to own a gun which as you know would be unconstitutional.
Hey, you haven't even given me a chance to compromise it! Between making up what I believe for yourself and accusing me of being unwilling to compromise, you really ought to pause for a little bit so I can get into character for this poorly written role you've assigned me. It's only fair.
Answer the question as asked. If we could have put laws on the books, gun legislation like people wanted after Parkland, what law would have prevented this event?
Here’s a hint. None. His sawed off shotgun was illegal. Just the kid alone having a gun is illegal. Can’t have guns on school property. Lots of laws are already in place. Another law wouldn’t have prevented this. Yet all you hear Democrats doing is talking about bullshit gun legislation that won’t stop these things from happening.
I’m being serious, Datt. What gun legislation being pushed by Democrats would have prevented this? Go look through Twitter and see all the Democrats outlining what they want to do. The problem is nothing would have prevented this. They’re simply using this as a chance to push gun legislation. It’s gross, really.
I'm not in the business of writing legislation and you don't get to change the conversation from insulting everyone who dares suggest we consider new laws to demanding what those laws are. You're still drawing the line at nothing and anyone trying to discuss it w/ you is stuck there.
What evidence do you have that Senator Schumer will support only something that extreme? I found this from The Hill, a slightly right-of-center, high integrity medium:
"Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) on Thursday unveiled his caucus' three-part gun control plan...
The most controversial part of the Democratic plan outlined by Schumer is a demand that a ban on assault weapons be part of the Senate debate.
Democrats also want to close 'loopholes' on background checks for guns sold over the internet and at gun shows...
Democrats are also pitching 'protective orders' that would allow law enforcement or family members to get a court order to block an individual deemed dangerous from getting a gun."
So your "only"? It's a lie, bert.
The most controversial thing is demanding debate about banning specific guns.
What do you have other than old man rage?
Please define what an "assault rifle" is in Schumer language?
I will pass that along.
We had a ban like that in the 1990's. It changed nothing.
What in hell do you mean by "old man rage"? You can stick that.
I trust you're serious, but you're also asking rhetorically. You're answering your own question.
I think it's the wrong question b/c it implies this is a discussion about finding one magic law that will stop every incident and if it doesn't, it's therefore a failure. Meanwhile you cite a single thwarted school shooting by a heroic SRO in Illinois as evidence that more guns in schools is the solution.
When is the right time to talk about gun legislation? You don't have much credibility questioning Democrats' timing or motivation if the answer from the right is "never."
My whole point is the gun legislation being brought up won’t stop these shootings. Framing it like it would stop all shootings is disingenuous. That’s exactly what liberals are doing right now.
Why? It doesn't mean rescinding the 2nd, which is what you claimed. I highlighted the most controversial of three components. 3. You said "only." The other two have to do w/ background checks and private sales.
The 1994 ban was overturned by SCOTUS in the late '90s. Columbine was in 1999 and is largely viewed as the catalyst for what is now epidemic. The ban fully expired in 2004. I would have far more credibility claiming a link between the overturning of the ban and the rise in school shootings than you do in saying "It changed nothing," but I would never lower myself so much as to use so unscientific a method for drawing that conclusion.
You bluster, exaggerate, and lie. You want some automatic respect b/c you're old and b/c you tell us you are so wise, but you act like a childish brat and resort to stupid, extremist lies instead.
I've seen exactly one of the handful of liberals here say anything like that (and he was exactly that dumb). I just cited THE Senate Democrat proposal, which is nothing like that. No one of note is suggesting anything remotely close to a fix for all shootings.
Until one side of the gun debate actually participates in doing anything, what's disingenuous is acting as if it's b/c specific untried options won't work.
He can't take a comment at face value. He has to twist it into you being wrong about something.
I woulf say until both sides swallow their pride, drop party affiliation and work for real solutions that are probably a compromise with each side having parts that make them uncomfortable, nothing with change and nothing will be done.
I didn't say culture. I am saying it is 100% poverty and crazies that cause a lot of murders.
The table above is interesting in the sense because a lot of my older country relatives are saying murders didn't happen as much as when they were a kid. This table disagrees with that which is FiveThirtyEight and uses FBI data. The only thing that has changed is the use of guns in murders. In the 60s it was 50% and now it is in the 70%. What also changed during this time frame? Guns went from 60 to 100 people to 100 to 100 people. Guns also became a ton better and easier to use. Again, another lie by gun rights people and the NRA.
I am assuming another reason why our murder rates are so high is our country's incessant stupidity on drug wars and why the 70s, 80s and 90s were so high.
I am assuming why our older generation is so IGNORANT on the murder rates in the 60s is the lack of technology like we have today. We have twitter, world news, etc at the touch of our fingers. I don't for the life of me understand why people don't want to continue improvement.
Can we ban cell phones and the internet as well? The founding fathers could have never imagined our first amendment rights being so advanced.
Everyone wants to improve, some just don’t agree with your solutions and assumptions. There are, you know, other ideas than your own right? Instead of realizing not everyone thinks the same way that you do or values the same things that you do, you simply write them off as stupid, racist, homophobic, sexist, etc.
Liberals like yourself are why we have Trump. You literally think less of conservatives, which in and of itself, is pathetic. Based on what I read here from you, you are definitely the type of guy who lost friends because of politics. Guarantee you defriended people because they voted for Trump which speaks volumes to your character, or lack thereof.
But by all means, keep it up. I want Trump around for another six years! #maga
I don't think anyone disagrees with you that poverty plays a major role in murders. But a lot of what you are saying here doesn't really show that gun control will solve the issues. The only way to completely fix the gun problem is to get rid of guns all together. And that is not going to happen. We can agree on that, right? So you are implying that if we fix the poverty issue, murders will decrease? I would probably agree with that and fixing the poverty issue should be a top priority anyways.I didn't say culture. I am saying it is 100% poverty and crazies that cause a lot of murders.
The table above is interesting in the sense because a lot of my older country relatives are saying murders didn't happen as much as when they were a kid. This table disagrees with that which is FiveThirtyEight and uses FBI data. The only thing that has changed is the use of guns in murders. In the 60s it was 50% and now it is in the 70%. What also changed during this time frame? Guns went from 60 to 100 people to 100 to 100 people. Guns also became a ton better and easier to use. Again, another lie by gun rights people and the NRA.
I am assuming another reason why our murder rates are so high is our country's incessant stupidity on drug wars and why the 70s, 80s and 90s were so high.
You mentioned the war on drugs being another reason why the murder rate is up. What's interesting is that the murder rate was rising before the war on drugs and leveled out when it began and then dropped a little while after it had been enacted, according to your graph. Do you not think that DRUGS may have contributed to the increase in murders and not so much the ware on drugs? Drugs play a big role in poverty as well. Drugs play a big role in fatherless homes. Drugs play a big role in violent crimes, including murders. So as @Dattier has brought up many times, the war on drugs may contribute to disparities in incarcerated people based on race, I don't see how you can attribute the murder rate increase to it.
Wow. I would like to see my posts that exhibit that Dattier. You can't find them.
Extremist lies? Stupid? Childish brat?
He's been in a special mood lately. He's got blood comimg out of his eyes and blood coming out of his.... wherever. He'll snap out of it eventually.
I just gave you examples: Lying that Sen. Schumer wants to take away gun ownership. That covers the stupid, too.
And the raging old man, second childhood immaturity: "...those b******* don't let their guard down at all; they expressly tell us their plans; up front and honestly: they want ever d***** gun in the U.S.so they can institute Marxist socialism... F*** 'progressives', the dudes that want to take guns away."
I'm not going to snap out of supporting eloquent statements with indisputable evidence.
Here is a summary of this thread and my views on each subject.
Murder: There are multiple cities that contribute most of the U.S. murders. The last murder in my little town was in 1951. So, Oakland, Chicago, St. Louis etc. have problems that are not shared with most areas. Drug thugs probably lead the way as they survive in a dog eat dog world where only the strong and meanest survive.
Poverty: LB Johnson tried the war on poverty and after spending billions the poverty rate went up. Giving improvised people a hand out instead of a hand up simply keeps them in poverty. The best way to give improvised people a hand up is to educate them and move them into a different culture that honors work.
Economic models: Capitalism works, socialism does not work. The ideal system is about 95% capitalism with 5% regulations that gives temporary safety nets for failure. I spent my career by understanding economics and the laws that regulate them. In fact, one may say that I could be considered an expert in a small section of the U.S. economy.
Guns: Our Constitution allows private citizens to own and use guns. Reasonable regulations should be accepted; however, the anti-gun crew wants guns removed just like they were in Australia and France. It will not happen because people like me, with guns, will not allow it. Schumer’s three-part gun control plan will fail in the US Supreme Court just like that part of the 94 act; however, it is just a political stunt to show the evils of the Conservatives. Hell, he started bragging about it and had never even discussed it with Mitch McConnell, so it is stupid because only McConnell can put it to vote. (Note, I see nothing wrong with his proposal, except it will not pass constitutional muster.)
School shooting: Place magnetometers at all entrance points to a school. Have a select number of teachers trained and armed. That means that folks cannot get into schools with guns and knives, if they overcome the security then the armed teachers can limit the damage. We have hardened our airports to the point that folks don’t even try to shoot them up. Schools are a lot easier to harden than an airport that is designed to move tens of thousands a day through them in both directions. School districts who refuse to do this can expose their kids to mass shootings; however, if they then happen it will be their fault.
Mental health: If someone is crazy or acts crazy get them help. Don’t let them buy or get guns. Make sure they take their medications. The answer is not confiscating my damned guns.
Racism: Most of us are not racist. The left needs to stop using race as a crutch when they lose an argument. If you win an argument you are a racist. If there is no history of you being a racist it is because you don’t understand subconscious racism. Such stuff is simply a ration of bullshit.
Murder: There are multiple cities that contribute most of the U.S. murders. The last murder in my little town was in 1951. So, Oakland, Chicago, St. Louis etc. have problems that are not shared with most areas. Drug thugs probably lead the way as they survive in a dog eat dog world where only the strong and meanest survive.
Poverty: LB Johnson tried the war on poverty and after spending billions the poverty rate went up. Giving improvised people a hand out instead of a hand up simply keeps them in poverty. The best way to give improvised people a hand up is to educate them and move them into a different culture that honors work.
Economic models: Capitalism works, socialism does not work. The ideal system is about 95% capitalism with 5% regulations that gives temporary safety nets for failure. I spent my career by understanding economics and the laws that regulate them. In fact, one may say that I could be considered an expert in a small section of the U.S. economy.
(note before Dattier attacks my economic background: I retired at 53 and my last year I managed a $?00 million market. I understand economics and I have the hardware to prove it.)
Guns: Our Constitution allows private citizens to own and use guns. Reasonable regulations should be accepted; however, the anti-gun crew wants guns removed just like they were in Australia and France. It will not happen because people like me, with guns, will not allow it. Schumer’s three-part gun control plan will fail in the US Supreme Court just like that part of the 94 act; however, it is just a political stunt to show the evils of the Conservatives. Hell, he started bragging about it and had never even discussed it with Mitch McConnell, so it is stupid because only McConnell can put it to vote. (Note, I see nothing wrong with his proposal, except it will not pass constitutional muster.)
School shooting: Place magnetometers at all entrance points to a school. Have a select number of teachers trained and armed. That means that folks cannot get into schools with guns and knives, if they overcome the security then the armed teachers can limit the damage. We have hardened our airports to the point that folks don’t even try to shoot them up. Schools are a lot easier to harden than an airport that is designed to move tens of thousands a day through them in both directions. School districts who refuse to do this can expose their kids to mass shootings; however, if they then happen it will be their fault.
Mental health: If someone is crazy or acts crazy get them help. Don’t let them buy or get guns. Make sure they take their medications. The answer is not confiscating my damned guns.
Racism: Most of us are not racist. The left needs to stop using race as a crutch when they lose an argument. If you win an argument you are a racist. If there is no history of you being a racist it is because you don’t understand subconscious racism. Such stuff is simply a ration of bullshit.
Okay.
Cool story. Actual evidence implies people use govt assistance for brief periods of time.
Our culture always has approved of "their" work, haven't we?
Bu-bu-but chemistry degree!
You come across as dumb on this stuff b/c you're always so over-the-top about socialism. It sounds like just a random insulting word with no specific meaning, the way you use it. An intelligent approach would acknowledge its intrigue, principle, theory, and appropriate applications, even if ultimately it is rejected.
What reasonable regulations would you find acceptable?
How can you have any authority in the area of being reasonable when you lie about the anti-gun crew" and how it's all just a political stunt? Then you even acknowledge you see nothing wrong w/ the proposal.
Armed teachers can also shoot the wrong person, have their gun taken, escalate lesser situations into shootings, and all kinds of things that increase the damage, just like more gun owners die from accidents w/ their own guns than protect their families.
And victim-blaming. Your only solution involves adding more guns and treating schools like military complexes. It's ridiculous. Are you really incapable of seeing the irony of clinging so closely and blindly to the idea of guns' securing freedom that we turn into a police state limiting our quality of life?
All about you...
Most of us aren't consciously racist. Most of us have ingrained biases and blind spots. You're essentially rejecting the premise that we don't know everything there is to know about race and racism.
Murders in Australia continued on the same declining rate they were years before the mandatory voluntary gun buyback.
So you don't want to discuss the graph you provided on the murder rate in America and your thoughts on the reasoning?
Also, I pointed out that I believe getting rid of guns all together (which is what Australia did) is the only way to significantly reduce the threat of mass shootings. I Also don't think that will happen. I asked if you agreed.
It is weird that you went from that to Australia.
I missed this. This is correct. And I know that you and other conservatives are supporters of the NRA. But when the political influence they have leads to the right pandering to them for votes, it will be damn near impossible for the republicans to drop party affiliation to work towards a compromise. The best way of coming to a compromise (IMO) would be to not allow leaders of the NRA have the influence of the GOP that they do. It's not like going against them will lead their supporters to vote democrat.
