I promise not to debate you…

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Members do not see this ad.
The two biggest differences in the US that make any real restrictions on effectively being able to combat gun violence are the sheer number of firearms already in possession in the US and the culture that has been cultivated and irreversibly tied to the constitution about rights to gun ownership. The fastest way to see widespread armed conflict on US soil that potentially culminates in the closest thing we can get to civil war would be to pass sweeping reform on gun control laws. In order to really make a difference, you would have to impose mandatory gun buyback programs to get guns off the streets and out of possession of citizens. The lack of gun ownership in other countries is why gun violence is so much lower than in the US. That won't sit well with a very well-armed minority. We saw what a minority with no evidence to back their cause did on January 6th with their actions at the US capitol building. Imagine if the government were to completely validate all their conspiracies. The fringe extreme right-wing individuals who think the government is out to get them would be able to rally the less extreme to their cause, and I don't think the result would be pretty. We have seen in recent history a few incidences of individuals getting into armed standoffs with law enforcement over the loss of constitutional rights, real or perceived, in the Bundy standoff in 2014.

It's hard to set aside strong emotions, especially when both political camps are so adept at manipulating emotions and skewing facts in order to further their agendas to win elections and secure more seats in each branch of the federal government. I am surprised that so many physicians and would-be physicians are unable to step back from their emotional responses and objectively look at the facts. The biggest argument I'm seeing is "I bet you'd be saying something else if it was your kids." That's probably true for most people because that would certainly evoke a more powerful individual emotional response. The facts make it really hard to justify any changes in gun ownership laws that would be able to make a real difference in outcome. In 2019, according to the FBI, of the 10,258 homicides by firearms, only 364 of those were by rifles. AR-type rifles like the ones used in these mass shootings are included in that number. The sweeping gun reforms that would be even remotely conscionable to the right-wing half of the nation wouldn't realistically prevent all of these deaths, because again there are already mountains of rifles out there. Even in the best-case scenario and we are able to completely prevent all of those deaths by high capacity and high rate of fire rifles, those who are set on committing murder and as much loss of human life as they can before going out in a blaze of glory gunfighting police will have other options with which to accomplish their goals. I don't see any realistic way to institute change on the national level that can prevent people from shooting up schools, churches, malls, or other crowded areas.

In a perfect world, we would have politicians that care about the issues and want to accurately represent the constituents that voted them into office, as the system was designed. Unfortunately, we have big tech, big pharma, big oil, big __insert_whatever_lobbyist_that_opposes_your_political_views_here__ all getting in the way and muddying up our representative democracy. We also have inflammatory media on both sides that polarize each political camp beyond reason, so nothing actually ends up getting done because they vote for more and more radical representatives that bicker and fight and filibuster instead of coming together and having real debates based on evidence and common sense. The system is muddy, the people are divided, and neither side can convince the other to go against their deepest moral beliefs, so we get to enjoy political debates between some of the people that most of the country is least excited about electing to lead them for the next 4 years.
 
thinkorswim said:
Let me save you the trouble.

"The time for politics is later, let the families mourn."

"Guns don't kill people, people do."

"It's not a gun problem, it's a mental health problem"

"This wouldn't have happened if we had guns in schools."

"Immigrants."

"This tragedy just shows how precious the gift of life is... so ban abortions."
Click to expand...

Got ‘em.
 
We need to limit firearms. Common sense is restrict high capacity magazines and assault rifles. If this kid had a handgun far fewer people would have died.

“Limiting guns won’t help because people kill people, guns don’t kill people” is the most stupid argument I’ve ever heard. The rest of the world knows this, but somehow people think their right to buy weapons meant for battlefield use to kill mass amounts of people outweighs the right of everyone else to feel safe in society. What an incredibly selfish and insane opinion to hold.
 
GandalfTheWhite said:
I knew there were some Fuk3d up people on this board and this profession, but I just realized today how Fuk3d up some of you are. Bet the conversation would be different if it was your child.
Click to expand...
I said almost the exact same thing on this board once and my head and ass were handed to me on a platter. I had a pretty active surgeon come out of the woodworks and accuse me of wishing death on children and calling me all kinds of vile crap. It’s not even worth it anymore. I am surprised this topic currently as cool as it is. Hasn’t even popped off yet like it always does with all the gun lovers who will swear that even if it was their own child, they would still want to carry around their AR15 as part of their second amendment rights. I kid you not. Google gun threads here and see. So messed up.
Me, I want out of the most violent, first world country there is.
People ask me all the time when I go to my homeland in Africa whether I feel safe.
I say, “a hell of a lot more than I do in America.” We don’t have the homicides they do here but we also don’t allow people to have guns either.
 
the sheer volume of guns in America is a problem. Many people have guns stolen from their home, this is how a lot of guns end up on the street. I agree we need aggressive gun buyback programs.
 
dipriMAN said:
We need to limit firearms. Common sense is restrict high capacity magazines and assault rifles. If this kid had a handgun far fewer people would have died.

“Limiting guns won’t help because people kill people, guns don’t kill people” is the most stupid argument I’ve ever heard. The rest of the world knows this, but somehow people think their right to buy weapons meant for battlefield use to kill mass amounts of people outweighs the right of everyone else to feel safe in society. What an incredibly selfish and insane opinion to hold.
Click to expand...
If this kid had a knife a hell of a lot less children would have died. Maybe just one or none. Remember Japan?
But no, people are so brainwashed in the whole “guns don’t kill people bs” as if guns are AI and can trigger themselves. SMH
 
dipriMAN said:
the sheer volume of guns in America is a problem. Many people have guns stolen from their home, this is how a lot of guns end up on the street. I agree we need aggressive gun buyback programs.
Click to expand...
I see a Civil war with Militias looming I bet were this to happen. However I totally agree with you and hope I am wrong.
 
chocomorsel said:
I see a Civil war with Militias looming I bet were this to happen. However I totally agree with you and hope I am wrong.
Click to expand...

That’s the biggest problem. You’re never going to convince the people who have the most guns and their friends and family that the government buyback programs aren’t an act of tyranny. They always cite Nazi Germany when you suggest that.
 
Neuroscifan said:
The two biggest differences in the US that make any real restrictions on effectively being able to combat gun violence are the sheer number of firearms already in possession in the US and the culture that has been cultivated and irreversibly tied to the constitution about rights to gun ownership. The fastest way to see widespread armed conflict on US soil that potentially culminates in the closest thing we can get to civil war would be to pass sweeping reform on gun control laws. In order to really make a difference, you would have to impose mandatory gun buyback programs to get guns off the streets and out of possession of citizens. The lack of gun ownership in other countries is why gun violence is so much lower than in the US. That won't sit well with a very well-armed minority. We saw what a minority with no evidence to back their cause did on January 6th with their actions at the US capitol building. Imagine if the government were to completely validate all their conspiracies. The fringe extreme right-wing individuals who think the government is out to get them would be able to rally the less extreme to their cause, and I don't think the result would be pretty. We have seen in recent history a few incidences of individuals getting into armed standoffs with law enforcement over the loss of constitutional rights, real or perceived, in the Bundy standoff in 2014.

It's hard to set aside strong emotions, especially when both political camps are so adept at manipulating emotions and skewing facts in order to further their agendas to win elections and secure more seats in each branch of the federal government. I am surprised that so many physicians and would-be physicians are unable to step back from their emotional responses and objectively look at the facts. The biggest argument I'm seeing is "I bet you'd be saying something else if it was your kids." That's probably true for most people because that would certainly evoke a more powerful individual emotional response. The facts make it really hard to justify any changes in gun ownership laws that would be able to make a real difference in outcome. In 2019, according to the FBI, of the 10,258 homicides by firearms, only 364 of those were by rifles. AR-type rifles like the ones used in these mass shootings are included in that number. The sweeping gun reforms that would be even remotely conscionable to the right-wing half of the nation wouldn't realistically prevent all of these deaths, because again there are already mountains of rifles out there. Even in the best-case scenario and we are able to completely prevent all of those deaths by high capacity and high rate of fire rifles, those who are set on committing murder and as much loss of human life as they can before going out in a blaze of glory gunfighting police will have other options with which to accomplish their goals. I don't see any realistic way to institute change on the national level that can prevent people from shooting up schools, churches, malls, or other crowded areas.

In a perfect world, we would have politicians that care about the issues and want to accurately represent the constituents that voted them into office, as the system was designed. Unfortunately, we have big tech, big pharma, big oil, big __insert_whatever_lobbyist_that_opposes_your_political_views_here__ all getting in the way and muddying up our representative democracy. We also have inflammatory media on both sides that polarize each political camp beyond reason, so nothing actually ends up getting done because they vote for more and more radical representatives that bicker and fight and filibuster instead of coming together and having real debates based on evidence and common sense. The system is muddy, the people are divided, and neither side can convince the other to go against their deepest moral beliefs, so we get to enjoy political debates between some of the people that most of the country is least excited about electing to lead them for the next 4 years.
Click to expand...
You could always do a voluntary gun buyback along with laws requiring significant improvements in gun security. People who are lukewarm (and more likely to have guns stolen) can sell them and blow that money on whatever tv or car they have their eye on. People that value guns make a better effort to secure them. Australia removed over 700,000 guns almost immediately. I know that’s far from the magnitude of guns we have in the US, but it’s a sign that we might see some success.
 
For all the folks pointing out the contradiction between banning abortion and supporting unrestricted 2nd Amendment rights...You're right. It's a contradiction, because 19 children's bodies being torn apart by bullets or curettes is no different.

So who's for repealing the 2nd Amendment and banning abortions? That's a trade I'd make in a heartbeat.
 
I hate to say it - but gun control is dead in the water. If masses of children being slaughtered over and over in this country isn’t enough to galvanize action - we won’t ever get it. Might as well move out of the country if you can’t live with that. I am all for strict controls - but even if that was not a pipe dream, the sheer number of firearms out there would make any change take decades to make even a small difference.

So how about we try totally new approaches that maybe both sides could support?

1. Re-institutionalize people? Stricter reporting laws, loosen Hippa, ease the burden to get insane people committed?

2. Work with social media companies and pass laws and spend tons of money to quickly detect patterns indicating violent danger?

3 make it law and spend a ton of money hardening schools- Multiple armed guards, mandatory locked doors/barricades in both the front and for each classroom.

4. Promote gun safety classes. Make them free for all.

5. Stricter mandatory brutal sentences for offenses that might predict this type of violent psychopath behavior (animal torture/cruelty, online threats of violence etc).
 
Last edited:
Why not just incentivize buybacks through extreme amounts of cash rather than making them mandatory. I promise (basic economics) that if the government offered 10000 per buyback, even the staunchest 2a believers would sell them back. Note: there would have to be a condition that anybody who partook in the program would be ineligible to purchase again.

I guess though that the volume might make even that impossible as it would come out to about 1 trillion dollars
 
Well, we didn't even get through the first page of this destined-to-be-enormous thread before the Buzzword-Bingo drivel began to ooze:
scoopdaboop said:
They almost view it as when they are sexually aroused and blood rushes and engorge. A gun to them is a direct extension of their phallus.
Click to expand...

bingocard.png


There you go scoop, the honor of the first X on my card.



I was going to stop typing here. We've had this thread before. The search function isn't great, but anyone who cares what I think probably already knows.

And then I thought about it a bit, and it occurred to me that a couple things actually have changed recently or are about to change. There's been some court activity lately which has some bearing on this mass shooting and what (if anything) Congress can or will do.

So in the spirit of giving @caligas a sincere answer, I'll put forth a few thoughts.


1) It appears this guy bought the rifle shortly after his 18th birthday. I've heard a lot of commentary about how an 18-year-old shouldn't be allowed to buy a rifle. Sometimes that commentary is limited to rifles of a darker "assault-ish" complexion, and sometimes it's applied to all rifles.

First, on the federal side, the Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibits persons under 21 from purchasing handguns, and persons under 18 from purchasing long guns. So age limitations aren't a new idea, and they've survived at least some legal scrutiny. Though as we've observed recently, SCOTUS appears to be getting over its shyness when it comes to disposing of logically- and legally-dubious precedent, even if a reversal disturbs the status quo in a big way.

In 2019, California passed a law that prohibited persons under 21 from purchasing semiautomatic centerfire rifles. (Of course, it's idiotic to expect this to reduce their ability to commit murders, when 98%+ of the firearm murders they commit involve handguns it's already illegal for them to purchase.)

Anyway, just a couple weeks ago, a 3-judge panel on the 9th Circuit ruled that law unconstitutional. Last I heard, California's Attorney General was still weighing whether or not to seek en banc review of that decision. Five years ago, it'd have been a no-brainer - of course he would've, because the 9th was freakishly lopsided to the left and an en banc review would've been a guaranteed win. These days, the 9th is a little more balanced, and he needs to weigh how badly he wants to fight this ruling ... with the risk of it eventually reaching SCOTUS, with predictably bad results for other facets of CA gun control.

If anything, I think the legal trajectory we're on is closer to getting the 1968 under-21 handgun ban overturned by SCOTUS, than we are to getting a durable under-21 rifle ban created.


2) SCOTUS will, before July 1st, release its decision in NYSRPA v. Bruen.

We really can't have a gun control discussion without considering the impact this is likely to have.

Since Alito got to write the majority opinion on the abortion case, it seems probable that Thomas is going to get this one. There's no telling how narrow or broad the ruling will be. But Thomas has made no secret that he is tired of the 2nd Amendment being treated like a second-class right by the Court; that he is frustrated by Heller and McDonald being systematically ignored and subverted by states and lower courts; and that the abuse and gamesmanship on the part of NYC that got the predecessor to this case (NYSRPA v. NYC) ruled moot, isn't going to be tolerated now that the Court is 6-3.

The outcome of this case isn't in doubt at all - only the extent of the ruling. Maybe it'll just be a super narrow and esoteric ruling on procedures and standards for the way states issue firearm carry permits and not much will change. But I think Thomas has been itching for a long time to drop the hammer on this subject.



Anyway - to get to the point, after more than a decade in which exactly 0% of gun-related appeals to SCOTUS were granted cert, we're on the cusp of a potentially momentus SCOTUS ruling on the 2nd Amendment. Even the once-liberal bastion of the 9th Circuit is turning a rather jaundiced eye toward some facets of gun control at the state level.

Many people expect that NYSRPA v. Bruen will establish strict scrutiny as the benchmark for evaluating laws that place limits on the 2nd Amendment. Strict scrutiny means that to be upheld, a law must meet three requirements:
1) it must further a compelling governmental interest
2) it must be as narrowly tailored
3) it must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest


Whether or not SCOTUS goes that way or not, my personal opinion is that any acceptable (to me) new regulation of firearms must meet these criteria.

I confess ongoing cynicism about gun control efforts from the left. Just as the right has effectively used incrementalism and frog-boiling techniques to gradually chip away at abortion rights, with the obvious end goal of a total ban - the left talks about reasonableness and "common sense" but the obvious end goal is a total ban, registration, confiscation. Occasionally the quiet part was said out loud (e.g. Feinstein, Beto). I've lost track of the number of times people on this board have told me, in these discussions that I can relax, no one's going to come take my guns. (Hey, that's on the bingo card too!) Of course they're coming. Of course they are. Just as (of course) the right wants a complete total ironclad ban on abortion. Of course they do.


I honestly don't see how any new gun control laws will possibly be even marginally effective at stopping these events, and consistent with strict scrutiny.
- Universal background checks? Ineffective
- Stronger red flag laws? Prone to abuse, probably ineffective
- Ban & confiscate? Unconstitutional
- Age limits? See the above 9th Circuit decision

So here we are again. Impassioned and (mostly) sincere calls to do SOMETHING ... but most of those somethings won't actually achieve the stated objective. And the somethings that might, are clearly over the line. We're not Australia - emulating their "solution" is just a ridiculous line of discussion.


Here's the answer, but it would take a multi-generational cultural shift. The "it's mental illness" line sort of frustrates me, because it's too simple/glib ... but it's true. But it's not just individuals who might be helped by better healthcare or after-school programs.

It's a deep, cultural illness of discontent and despair. How can anyone look at the overall state of the USA today, and not see it?

Crazy people gonna crazy, but gang turf wars and angry white supremacist replacement-theory dinguses like the Tucker Carlson Shooter who shot up that grocery store in Buffalo, are two faces of the same coin. These people wouldn't exist if they didn't grow up in broken communities.

Gun control is like seeing a couple of rabid dogs, and deciding to pull the teeth out of every canine species and subspecies.

Poverty, despair, dwindling opportunity (blamed on the Other), manipulation misinformation and lies. The decent people on the right side of the political spectrum have mostly no ideas. The decent people on the left side of the political spectrum have mostly stupid ideas.
 
dipriMAN said:
the sheer volume of guns in America is a problem. Many people have guns stolen from their home, this is how a lot of guns end up on the street. I agree we need aggressive gun buyback programs.
Click to expand...
Guns for free health insurance sounds like an easy trade.
 
agammaglobulin said:
What happened in Texas is terrible. As a parent, I cannot imagine getting that phone call from the school.

Politics/policy wise - 260 children got shot in Chicago in 2021, over 50 died. Are you equally outraged?
Click to expand...
Whataboutisms are not a defense
 
Neuroscifan said:
It's hard to set aside strong emotions, especially when both political camps are so adept at manipulating emotions and skewing facts in order to further their agendas to win elections and secure more seats in each branch of the federal government. I am surprised that so many physicians and would-be physicians are unable to step back from their emotional responses and objectively look at the facts. The biggest argument I'm seeing is "I bet you'd be saying something else if it was your kids." That's probably true for most people because that would certainly evoke a more powerful individual emotional response. The facts make it really hard to justify any changes in gun ownership laws that would be able to make a real difference in outcome. In 2019, according to the FBI, of the 10,258 homicides by firearms, only 364 of those were by rifles. AR-type rifles like the ones used in these mass shootings are included in that number. The sweeping gun reforms that would be even remotely conscionable to the right-wing half of the nation wouldn't realistically prevent all of these deaths, because again there are already mountains of rifles out there. Even in the best-case scenario and we are able to completely prevent all of those deaths by high capacity and high rate of fire rifles, those who are set on committing murder and as much loss of human life as they can before going out in a blaze of glory gunfighting police will have other options with which to accomplish their goals. I don't see any realistic way to institute change on the national level that can prevent people from shooting up schools, churches, malls, or other crowded areas.
Click to expand...
well said.

is there a specific problem to at least trialing a ban period on assault rifles though? everyone brings up the possibility that it won't help but how do you know? if it saves at least 1 life, is that not worth it ?
what's so special about owning assault rifles? what are the positives here? as far as I see, there have only been downsides repeated over and over.


out of curiosity, what other methods can you think of that will allow murderers accomplish their goals of mass fatalities? would you be referring to bombs, noxious gases, or thousands of shurikens? i mean i have a hard time believing stephen paddock would've created so much death without his insane weaponry in 2017...
 
GoBeers said:
well said.

is there a specific problem to at least trialing a ban period on assault rifles though? everyone brings up the possibility that it won't help but how do you know? if it saves at least 1 life, is that not worth it ?
what's so special about owning assault rifles? what are the positives here? as far as I see, there have only been downsides repeated over and over.


out of curiosity, what other methods can you think of that will allow murderers accomplish their goals of mass fatalities? would you be referring to bombs, noxious gases, or thousands of shurikens? i mean i have a hard time believing stephen paddock would've created so much death without his insane weaponry in 2017...
Click to expand...

The problem is in being able to pass a law and convincing people that it isn’t violating the 2nd amendment. I know for a fact that there are many who would say that a few hundred lives is absolutely not worth sacrificing an inch of their interpretation of constitutional rights (source: I’ve been given this answer before).
 
Neuroscifan said:
The problem is in being able to pass a law and convincing people that it isn’t violating the 2nd amendment. I know for a fact that there are many who would say that a few hundred lives is absolutely not worth sacrificing an inch of their interpretation of constitutional rights (source: I’ve been given this answer before).
Click to expand...
Thing is...they can still bear arms..the 2nd amendment doesn't say they can bare ALL arms.
They can have handguns
 
GoBeers said:
out of curiosity, what other methods can you think of that will allow murderers accomplish their goals of mass fatalities? would you be referring to bombs, noxious gases, or thousands of shurikens? i mean i have a hard time believing stephen paddock would've created so much death without his insane weaponry in 2017...
Click to expand...
you certainly won't be able to do so much damage so easily, but handguns can cause a lot of damage, especially in a classroom.
 
UscGhost said:
Thing is...they can still bear arms..the 2nd amendment doesn't say they can bare ALL arms.
They can have handguns
Click to expand...
That's the trick. Try convincing the right-wing people who believe that we should, according to the 2nd amendment, be allowed to own tanks and Javelin missile systems. There is a pretty large group of people who hold a pretty core belief that the 2nd amendment exists so that citizens can hold their own against the US military. That's why @pgg is, unfortunately, right in my opinion in that it's just not feasible to enact any major reform. You have to convince lawmakers on the conservative side of the aisle that they can vote for legislation that further defines or restricts the 2nd without losing all chance of reelection.
 
Neuroscifan said:
The problem is in being able to pass a law and convincing people that it isn’t violating the 2nd amendment. I know for a fact that there are many who would say that a few hundred lives is absolutely not worth sacrificing an inch of their interpretation of constitutional rights (source: I’ve been given this answer before).
Click to expand...
well i hope it goes to the ballots then and we'd see our people's sentiment. like i said, something has to be done or at least tried.
 
GoBeers said:
well i hope it goes to the ballots then and we'd see our people's sentiment. like i said, something has to be done or at least tried.
Click to expand...
That's the struggle with a democratic-ish society. Sometimes we don't like what the majority does. Hopefully this pulls on some heartstrings and people don't just listen to their favorite talking head who thinks for them.
 
The far left side of this thread are, of course, being obnoxious d bags (I wonder why conservatives won’t listen?!?) and the far right won’t budge an inch on this issue because they immediately shut down anything that involves change.

Like others have mentioned, I believe the answer to these God awful shootings doesn’t involve gun rights but something in the middle that doesn’t immediately send our overly politicized country into a meltdown.

While the left and right argue for eternity over gun rights can we in the mean time at least get some extra security around our schools? I don’t care how just get it done.
 
RocuROMANium said:
The far left side of this thread are, of course, being obnoxious d bags (I wonder why conservatives won’t listen?!?) and the far right won’t budge an inch on this issue because they immediately shut down anything that involves change.

Like others have mentioned, I believe the answer to these God awful shootings doesn’t involve gun rights but something in the middle that doesn’t immediately send our overly politicized country into a meltdown.

While the left and right argue for eternity over gun rights can we in the mean time at least get some extra security around our schools? I don’t care how just get it done.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Fight the battles you can win.

I am very skeptical of raising taxes but I’d gladly pay some extra tax to have every school in the country guarded and hardened enough that 1 crazy would have a low chance.
 
As someone who admittedly doesn’t have much insight into this, I’ve noticed that it seems like most mass killers who use high capacity magazine semiautomatic rifles aren’t people with a military background.

Does anyone think that a possible area of compromise would be to restrict ownership of these weapons to those that have served in the armed forces, thereby having theoretically received training and in a way having earned the privilege through their service, while limiting ownership for those who haven’t served to pistols, shotguns, and small capacity magazine or bolt action rifles? That way people retain the right to defend themselves, their homes and their families with firearms, but people who want to have weapons more capable of these mass killings have to develop discipline and invest some of their time and adult life into service, making it a real commitment.

Just an idea.
 
RocuROMANium said:
The far left side of this thread are, of course, being obnoxious d bags (I wonder why conservatives won’t listen?!?) and the far right won’t budge an inch on this issue because they immediately shut down anything that involves change.

Like others have mentioned, I believe the answer to these God awful shootings doesn’t involve gun rights but something in the middle that doesn’t immediately send our overly politicized country into a meltdown.

While the left and right argue for eternity over gun rights can we in the mean time at least get some extra security around our schools? I don’t care how just get it done.
Click to expand...
You're right the liberals are equally at fault #bothsides
 
Beeftenderloin said:
Australia. 1 mass shooting. Got rid of guns. No more mass shootings.
Click to expand...
Their policy was effective and their populace was happy that they were heard.

However, it was much easier to implement for Australia...and we don't even need to mention the 'theres 300million firearms out there already point.' Even if they were banned perhaps overall supply would dwindle mildly. Australia however doesn't share a laughable border with a nation run by murderous cartels that are searching for another revenue source that isn't weed since that has been drying their pockets out due to increased legal sources stateside.
 
The only way I can imagine reasonable interventions for gun crime involve two things:

1] Taxing the ever-living dog**** out of ammo.

2] Only allow importation/manufacture of 5 round magazines for handguns. Theyre the real number crunchers when it comes to gun deaths. Rifles look intimidating but the numbers (albeit in cases like this are demoralizing) are laughable in comparison.
 
Guillemot said:
A live body and a dead body contain the same number of particles. Structurally, there's no discernible difference. Life and death are unquantifiable abstracts. Why should I be concerned?
Click to expand...


Nihilist. Who GAF? Why struggle to keep a patient alive? Let’s all just stay home tmr. Nothing actually matters😉
 
doctalaughs said:
I am very skeptical of raising taxes but I’d gladly pay some extra tax to have every school in the country guarded and hardened enough that 1 crazy would have a low chance.
Click to expand...

Why does it even have to come to that? Why should a parent have to even think about the safety of their child at a school of all places?

Who’s going to “guard” a school? Odds are you’ll get some undertrained contract security guard to sit watch and do nothing.

The police sat outside of the school for 40 minutes while the active shooter was inside. They wouldn’t go into the school but were fine to hold parents back from trying to save their children. Pathetic.

 
thinkorswim said:
Why does it even have to come to that? Why should a parent have to even think about the safety of their child at a school of all places?

Who’s going to “guard” a school? Odds are you’ll get some undertrained contract security guard to sit watch and do nothing.

The police sat outside of the school for 40 minutes while the active shooter was inside. They wouldn’t go into the school but were fine to hold parents back from trying to save their children. Pathetic.

Click to expand...



“All it takes is a good guy with a gun” 🤔


Compare and contrast…

www.cnn.com

This hero doctor charged a gunman at a church service and prevented further bloodshed, officials say | CNN

A California family and sports medicine doctor with a deep interest in building community was praised as a hero after he died confronting a gunman at a church service Sunday.
www.cnn.com www.cnn.com
 
I just keep going back to parents not being able to recognize their slaughtered kids, not knowing by dropping them off that day AT SCHOOL would be the last time they would ever see them alive again.

As a parent of young kids, this thought eats away at my soul. We can continue to argue about so many different things and I know we will, but if this issue can’t bring us together as HUMAN BEINGS, I truly believe nothing ever will.
 
Last edited:
RadOncDoc21 said:
I just keep going back to parents not being able to recognize their slaughtered kids, not knowing by dropping them off that day AT SCHOOL would be the last time they would ever see them alive again.

As a parent of young kids, this thought eats away at my soul. We can continue to argue about so many different things and I know we will, but if this issue can’t bring us together as HUMAN BEINGS, I truly believe nothing ever will.
Click to expand...

Being a parent changes your perspective on a lot of things. I am usually pretty stoic when it comes to these types of tragedies, but now having young kids myself, I could not imagine what these parents are going through right now.

We’ve reached a breaking point in this country, and I’m not sure where we go from here. It’s a tragedy all around.
 
I love it that all the Republican leaders yelled and cursed at Beto before tossing him out after he interrupted their prayers and thoughts. How dare he implore them to action! Action!?!? Can't he see - they're mourning! They're offering thoughts and prayers! What the hell else does he expect them to do? Two weeks from now - nothing. Moving right along with business as usual. Wouldn't be shocked at all to see Greg Abbott tweet out some stupid 'Texans buy more guns! Don't fall behind Cali!' BS again.
 
There’s an article on CNN on a poll result. Less than 40% of Americans think there need to be (significant) changes to our gun laws. So it won’t happen.

Also heard on NPR this morning, with a representative of TX, saying something along the line that mental illness is one of the problems; in the same breath, citing we shouldn’t have big brother mentality to restrict peoples rights. I also liked how Abbot’s saying there was no mental illness history of the shooter. My question is what is it? Is there a mental illness component or not? If there is, since the right is hammering this hard, again, can we or can we not taking away the rights of a mentally ill person? Then are we instituting a big brother approach, which is also another big no no in peoples eyes?

Gun, abortion, and vaccine….. as a country which value individualism highly, there is no consensus where one’s right begin and end anymore.
 
pgg said:
Poverty, despair, dwindling opportunity (blamed on the Other), manipulation misinformation and lies. The decent people on the right side of the political spectrum have mostly no ideas. The decent people on the left side of the political spectrum have mostly stupid ideas.
Click to expand...

I don't know you, but I know that your use of guns (at least what you've tossed us with regard to your hobbies) is different than about 99% of the other gun owners out there. I find inexcusable that an 18 yr old could barricade himself in a classroom with a couple teachers and a room full of 9 and 10 year olds for an hour with 210 rounds (apparently 7 magazines with 30 round capacity) and we sit around on opposite sides of the gun debate each thinking there's nothing we can do to change that situation or make it safer for the kids. What about smaller magazine capacities? Would it have changed anything? I don't know. At least give the teachers a chance to rush the kid. Who even has a chance when he can blow off 30 rounds in 15 seconds with nothing but a couple teachers and kids around?

What about a national registry of gun purchases and one that limits the number of guns or types of guns (handguns only) that people < 25 can purchase?
Smaller magazine sizes or fewer magazines over a time period?
Limitations on the amount of ammo someone can purchase over a period of time? This loner bought 2 ARs and 375 rounds of ammo over a 3 day period. Who NEEDS that much? Okay, if he can prove he's heading to some skills competition or he's part of his college rifle club, then great. Go ahead. He's most likely mentally intact and emotionally balanced. But again, 99% of buyers don't have that motive.

There comes a point when the adults in the room have to be the adults in the room. I can't think of situations more tragic than Sandy Hook or Uvalde, and in my opinion every single one of our politicians share the guilt when they fail to act to protect our children.
 
Last edited:
Southpaw said:
I love it that all the Republican leaders yelled and cursed at Beto before tossing him out after he interrupted their prayers and thoughts. How dare he implore them to action! Action!?!? Can't he see - they're mourning! They're offering thoughts and prayers! What the hell else does he expect them to do? Two weeks from now - nothing. Moving right along with business as usual. Wouldn't be shocked at all to see Greg Abbott tweet out some stupid 'Texans buy more guns! Don't fall behind Cali!' BS again.
Click to expand...
 
Southpaw said:
Wait. Are you implying that FOXNEWS is focusing on Beto's staged interruption as opposed to the fact that the whole goddamn Republican asshat event was a STAGED EVENT?!?! I'm shocked I tell you. Completely shocked.
Click to expand...
Merely pointing out that the liberal media was stating it was staged by Beto.
 
lobelsteve said:
Merely pointing out that the liberal media was stating it was staged by Beto.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I get it. For me, this really isn't about politics or the media and how they'll react to whoever does what. Well, I guess it has to be on some level because I need our politicians to act in a way that'll protect our children. And I know they currently aren't doing that. There are sitting US Congressmen that I wouldn't trust with a firearm (Madison Cawthorne). Hell, didn't that goofball anesthesiologist Andy Harris keep trying to bring his handgun into Congress? I wouldn't trust the President behind the wheel of a car, much less to lead the country. This isn't about politics for me, or taking advantage of the situation. I have one basic ask here - that they act in a manner to protect our children. However it is, whatever they do, protect our kids at school. That's it.
 
Ezekiel2517 said:
Click to expand...



Holy crap, all that money, training, assault gears and cops couldn’t open a locked door. Cops had to wait for someone to bring a key...cops didn’t prepare for a way to breach a locked door? WTF.

On top of that, the school had armed security guards but an untrained kid was able to get inside of the school. My goodness....I have no words to describe the incompetence. And then Republicans want more money to harden targets and armed teachers. It’s just terrible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
New, annoying debate thread?
2
Replies
84
Views
4K
arsene19
A
G
Can you ask to work involuntarily?
Replies
32
Views
3K
deleted1130227
D
Iso4ane
Another victim of hospitals not wanting to pay their group?
Replies
8
Views
2K
MTGas2B
MTGas2B
S
ITE "keywords" that I can't interpret. AI also can't interpret. How am I supposed to learn from this?
Replies
5
Views
919
ToKingdomCome
T
A
group not paying me
2 3
Replies
106
Views
7K
abolt18
abolt18
Top