Rampage shooting in Santa Barbara by misogynist 22-yo.

[Dr. Trainwreck]

FYI, people with severe depression already are a major risk; you don't have to shoot others to engage in gun violence, and suicides make up about half of total gun deaths in the US. Doing what you're warning against would bring suicides down, since here's the thing: suicide is an impulsive thing. Most suiciders think about it for some time in an abstracted way, yes, but the actual decision and its execution happens spontaneously. That, I guess, is why such people are prescribed antipsychotics in addition to normal medication.

What I'm trying to say is, temporarily denying some people their 2nd Amendment might bring more benefit than harm.

But guns are only one common method of suicide. If you deny them guns to protect themselves, sure, but what's to stop denying them from other potential means of suicide? Are you going to ban them from buying rope, buying OTC drugs, or follow their every movements so they don't reach the top of a tall building or bridge?

Guns are a method of suicide that is easy to identify, have limited utility beyond harming stuff, and (selectively and carefully) cracking down on them will likely see a drop in suicide rates. Rope and medicine, on the other hand, are more useful in a lot of everyday situations, and so you deny a lot more utility by denying access to them. Finally, I doubt that following suicidal people 24/7 "in case you crazies pop yourselves" will aid with the obvious goal of helping their mental condition.

It's not a slippery slope because if you want to ban things that are potentially dangerous to suicidal people, you can't stop half-way here. A suicidal person will find a way to kill themselves, firearm or not.

Suicide will still keep happening. There, I said it, you obviously can't control everyone and even if you could, why should you be trusted with it? But you can help it, limit it to some extent, and currently we're discussing (I think) whether we can help enough to offset this (again, temporary) waiving of rights. My point isn't that we can stop people from finding ways to kill themselves, my point is that limiting gun ownership among the severely depressed will result in less people committing suicide. It has been observed that suicide is usually committed during a temporary fit, and it has been observed that the chance of committing suicide drops if there is no quick and convenient way nearby; in Washington, just putting a chest high barrier on a particular bridge dropped suicide rates for the whole state, for example, and then there's Rudeboy and his London example.

[Purple]

Guns aren't perfect, either. It's very possible to shoot yourself and not immediately die. You could slowly bleed to death, you could be found and treated but become permanently disabled or a vegetable for life, etcetera.

That is true. But more often than not it does work and you do die. Worse yet though the general impression of them is that they are perfect. And this in turn helps people gather their courage. Not to mention just how easy it is to try and kill your self using a gun.

All this together makes it so convenient to use one that it's very easy to just do it.

If you could argue that the instant nature of a bullet would prevent people from going back on their courage, then you could also argue the same for anyone on a precipice or anyone setting up a novice-to-amateur noose. Just as not everyone knows how to set up a noose to instantly kill themselves, not everyone will aim precisely at a location where they will die instantaneously.

The time it takes to set the rope up, find a good place to hang it on etc. is time you have to think and reconsider. That is why I would not regulate rope but would regulate firearms.

[Broomstick]

People with major depression are a potential risk for a type of gun violence called “suicide”. I'll also point out that not all suicidal people stick to just killing themselves.

Not all people with major depression are proven suicidal, though. That's a problem with blanket considerations; as you mentioned before they should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, but judging all people with depression or all people who take antidepressants/antipsychotics as risks to themselves (or potentials for murder-suicide, but this is another matter and mindset entirely) would cover a ton more people than anyone would like.

Well, yes, that is sort of what I said - there's a subset of depressed people who are at risk. In reality, there are a fuckton of people existing in a low-level chronic form of depression who aren't suicidal, just not very happy.

Certain anti-depressants are used to treat addictions. Some anti-psychotics have uses outside of psychosis. Too often, rules are made with the assumption that drug A is only used for condition A rather than the reality that it may well be used for conditions B, C, and D as well.

Also, I suspect this is where part of the stigma from major depression originates: the belief that a person could, in some fit of impulsive rage, set off and go murdering while offing themselves in the end.

Another part of the stigma is the habit of seeing mental illness as a moral failure or a failure of self-discipline rather than either biochemical problem or due to a particular environment.

[Dragon Angel]

Well, yes, that is sort of what I said - there's a subset of depressed people who are at risk. In reality, there are a fuckton of people existing in a low-level chronic form of depression who aren't suicidal, just not very happy.

Certain anti-depressants are used to treat addictions. Some anti-psychotics have uses outside of psychosis. Too often, rules are made with the assumption that drug A is only used for condition A rather than the reality that it may well be used for conditions B, C, and D as well.

Yeah. In addition to the purpose of a patient's prescription, ideally a psychiatric evaluation would also be conducted on them to determine what level of depression, or any other mental disorder they'd be afflicted with. But, assumptions again could interfere with this idealism.

Another part of the stigma is the habit of seeing mental illness as a moral failure or a failure of self-discipline rather than either biochemical problem or due to a particular environment.

That's a lot more common. I've heard a few patients with depression mention that people they knew were afraid of them snapping in a rampage because of their condition, rather than only looking down on them (though they were looked down on as well).

That is true. But more often than not it does work and you do die. Worse yet though the general impression of them is that they are perfect. And this in turn helps people gather their courage. Not to mention just how easy it is to try and kill your self using a gun.

All this together makes it so convenient to use one that it's very easy to just do it.

Going by purely impressions, jumping is also perceived to be perfect. But yes I understand your point. It is more difficult to find a height with sufficient distance to jump from, but arguably one could factor in the time necessary to acquire a gun, assuming whatever regulations that exist permit it. This leads back to implementing a regulation to determine if they are a risk to themselves, I guess, but again this would need to be carefully done.

Guns are a method of suicide that is easy to identify, have limited utility beyond harming stuff, and (selectively and carefully) cracking down on them will likely see a drop in suicide rates. Rope and medicine, on the other hand, are more useful in a lot of everyday situations, and so you deny a lot more utility by denying access to them. Finally, I doubt that following suicidal people 24/7 "in case you crazies pop yourselves" will aid with the obvious goal of helping their mental condition.

Again, I agree with selectively and carefully regulating. I just hope that no one slides down a slippery slope while doing so.

Suicide will still keep happening. There, I said it, you obviously can't control everyone and even if you could, why should you be trusted with it? But you can help it, limit it to some extent, and currently we're discussing (I think) whether we can help enough to offset this (again, temporary) waiving of rights. My point isn't that we can stop people from finding ways to kill themselves, my point is that limiting gun ownership among the severely depressed will result in less people committing suicide. It has been observed that suicide is usually committed during a temporary fit, and it has been observed that the chance of committing suicide drops if there is no quick and convenient way nearby; in Washington, just putting a chest high barrier on a particular bridge dropped suicide rates for the whole state, for example, and then there's Rudeboy and his London example.

I have to admit that through part of this topic, I was thinking people were arguing for a permanent waiver of rights, rather than temporary, so this is understandable.

[Panzersharkcat]

If you could argue that the instant nature of a bullet would prevent people from going back on their courage, then you could also argue the same for anyone on a precipice or anyone setting up a novice-to-amateur noose. Just as not everyone knows how to set up a noose to instantly kill themselves, not everyone will aim precisely at a location where they will die instantaneously.

The time it takes to set the rope up, find a good place to hang it on etc. is time you have to think and reconsider. That is why I would not regulate rope but would regulate firearms.

It goes with other methods like using knives. It takes a lot more courage to just draw blood than it would be to shoot yourself with a gun. I've tried twice to knife myself in the ribs but stopped when I started feeling pain. Whereas if I had access to firearms and the patience to go through the waiting period, I might not be typing this right now. I might since I wouldn't go for a head shot since I can only afford a .22 rifle and if I survive, I would survive with brain damage. That's more terrifying to me than dying.

[Beowulf]

I think you're missing the point. What he's saying is that we already have a system in place to make sure that people who are on street-sellable narcotics aren't getting the script filled at multiple pharmacies. That implies a database, somewhere, of who's getting x medication. There's no practical issue keeping that list from being extended to anti-psychotics and being checked as part of the routine background check for purchasing a gun. Whether that's legal, ethical, etc., is a separate issue, but it is not technically impossible, or even difficult.

Whether it would be a good idea is also up for debate, naturally, but the sheer basic concept of "You're on risperidone to manage your paranoid delusions. Maybe you shouldn't have a pistol," isn't fundamentally unsound.

They don't get it filled at multiple pharmacies because the pharmacies check with the doctor's office to make sure that the doctor's prescribed it and it hasn't been filled. That doesn't require a centralized database of who's gotten prescribed what. It requires a database of doctors with prescription privileges, and doctor's offices having a database of whether a prescription has been filled already.

On an entirely different note:

With the toughest gun-control regulations in the country, California has a unique, centralized database of gun purchases that law enforcement can easily search. It offers precious intelligence about a suspect or other people officers may encounter when responding to a call.

But this rare advantage wasn’t enough to help authorities head off the May 23 rampage in Santa Barbara that claimed six victims

Before a half-dozen sheriff’s deputies knocked on Elliot Rodger’s door last month in response to concerns raised by his mother about his well-being, they could have checked the database and discovered he had bought three 9mm semiautomatic handguns. Several law enforcement officials and legal experts on gun policy said this might have given deputies greater insight into Rodger’s intentions and his capability for doing harm.

The deputies did not check the database. They left his apartment after finding him to be “shy, timid, polite and well-spoken,” in the words of Santa Barbara County Sheriff Bill Brown. The deputies saw no evidence that Rodger was an immediate threat to others or to himself..

[maraxus2]

Hi everyone,

Today is the 2nd anniversary of the Isla Vista shootings. As might seem obvious, I used to post on this forum as "Maraxus." I wanted to briefly re-open this thread to talk about the killings, my friends, and what it's meant to UCSB and the larger community.

I used to live roughly 300 yards from Pardall Road, a main drag in town where one of the shootings took place. I'd actually gone back up to IV the weekend before, leaving the Monday before the killings took place. It seemed like IV always seems; it's a seedy, run-down shitpile, but at least it was our seedy, run-down shitpile.

Early in this thread, I'd mentioned that Elliot Rodger shot one of my friends. That's not quite accurate. He'd shot at him, but he narrowly missed. The bullet ricochet off a nearby wall, and a fragment hit him in what the Sheriff's department delicately described as "his inner thigh." Rodger actually hit him just above his left testicle, narrowly missing his femoral artery and the rest of his wedding tackle. We knew he was going to be OK when we saw that he was making dick jokes in the ambulance on the way to the hospital. Some people are just incorrigible.

He's fine now. There are damn-near constant dick jokes from him, and he was actually featured in a one-off performance about the shooting last year. His shooting-based standup career is as bright as can be.

Sadly, six others were not so lucky. I didn't know George Chen, James Hong, David Wang, Kat Cooper, Chris Michaels-Martinez, or Veronika Weiss. But friends of mine did. For a city of near 25,000 people, Isla Vista is a pretty fucking small place. George, James, and David were all in a young engineers club, and were friends of a very close friend of mine. Their murders grievously hurt the community. I know that my homegirl's never been the same since.

Just about the only good thing to come out of Rodger's murders was how quickly and easily the community came together to mourn. As mentioned, IV is usually a pretty shitty town. There are lots of shitty people living on top of each other in a shitty town. And yet, alums and students from literally across the world reached out to each other for comfort and aid when we all needed it.

At the same time, I was absolutely disgusted by the tabloid journos who descended on IV like a pack of hungry vultures. I was even more disgusted when the usual gun rights nutcases started pulling their usual bullshit, and I'm most glad that we've actually got some concrete gun rights bills shoved through the legislature in response to this madness.

Anyway, sorry for the thread necro.

[Flagg]

Thank you so much for that.

I want to share something, and I'm not trying to hijack this, it just got me remembering and ruminating (so if you feel it inappropriate I'd ask a mod to delete or HoS it):

I live in Marysville, WA where we had a school shooting almost 2 years ago at Marysville-Pilchuck under tragically familiar circumstances (it was over a girl, but that was the catalyst) and remember all of the media descending upon the town and helicopters swarming like buzzards and how we got about as many days coverage as students killed and then the National media never mentioned it again, but the community as a whole (especially the Native American community as it was Native children who did the shooting and dying) is still processing things and this place will never be like it was. The saddest victim, to me, is the cousin of the shooter who regarded him as a brother, they were raised so close (and called each other their brother, respectively). He was shot in the jaw, lucky to have survived (though I doubt he feels that way. I wouldn't) who late that night/early the next morning woke up and unable to talk was given paper or a whiteboard and the first thing he asked was "Why did my brother do this to me?" not knowing that his brother/cousin had both killed 2 of their closest friends and then turned the gun on himself.
I'm a hard-shell hearted son of a bitch when it comes to sentiment due to my own, in perspective, petty issues, but that still makes me want to cry and hug that boy and lie to him, telling him it will all be alright and will never happen again. The entire community wants to do the same. We would all take that boys pain and share it equally among us, but it still would be too much of a burden for the entire city of tens of thousands and would break us.
And we still wouldn't really be able to answer him truthfully and give him a reason for why his brother tried to kill him. Why his brother killed 2 of his best friends and then himself. I don't think there really is one. Maybe that's the real tragedy for the community, the state, the country. But we can cry for the dead ones and tell comforting lies to the survivors. But we'd never stand the pain of the boy who wanted to know why and never truly will.

[MKSheppard]

I was even more disgusted when the usual gun rights nutcases started pulling their usual bullshit, and I'm most glad that we've actually got some concrete gun rights bills shoved through the legislature in response to this madness.

[MKSheppard]

And we still wouldn't really be able to answer him truthfully and give him a reason for why his brother tried to kill him. Why his brother killed 2 of his best friends and then himself. I don't think there really is one.

Sure we can.

"Your brother basically decided to commit a murder spree over a girl and also about being kicked off the football team after being involved in a fight. As to why he shot you and the others? His thinking was basically -- 'If I'm going to be fucked over, I'll fuck you all over and bring you down with me as well' -- these people and their motives aren't exactly rocket surgery. While there are details we'll never know, we can pretty much pin down the broad strokes."

[Joun_Lord]

I was even more disgusted when the usual gun rights nutcases started pulling their usual bullshit, and I'm most glad that we've actually got some concrete gun rights bills shoved through the legislature in response to this madness.

Why are you disgusted about gun rights "nutcases" doing their usual bullshit and why are you glad some "concrete" gun rights bills got shoved through?

Let me explain. First, even if you disagree with the right to self defense, the right to own a firearm, and the right to compensate your tiny penis with an object, why would you feel disgust or think of gun rights advocates as nutcases? They did not shoot your friend, they did not arm or force the virgin loser to shoot those people (and stab them and run them over), they did not feel his head with the misogynistic bullshit that didn't even cause him to kill those people, all they did was say bullshit like punishing others for his actions is wrong, someone armed might have been able to stop the fucknut rather then becoming another victim, and the gun laws many were calling for in the aftermath of the shooting would not have stopped the shooting nor even have much to do with the shooting beyond those advocating for them using the shooting as an excuse to push an agenda. This leads into my next point.....

The gun laws many were calling for in the aftermath of the shooting would not have stopped the shooting nor even have much to do with the shooting beyond those advocating for them using the shooting as an excuse to push an agenda (though the pro-rights side are just as guilty of that). Stuff like bans on"assault weapon", bullet buttons, "clip" limits, ghosts guns, and background checks that have all either been floated or forced through would not have prevented Elliot Rodger's Rampage. He had nothing in his background to stop him from buying a gun even with the best background check, he didn't use an assault weapon, he bought his guns legally, and the magazine limits to 10 rounds is exactly what Rodger's used. And half the people he killed he didn't even use a firearm, he used a car that he thought owning automatically meant women should worship his tiny pecker, he used a knife.

Those gun law DID NOT have anything to do with the victims shot, they were laws people already were pushing long before this douchebag did his douchebag shit, the victims were just an excuse.

The person you should be disgusted by is Elliot Rodger. The person who you should consider a nutcase is Elliot Rodger. Elliot Rodger pulled the trigger on his still totally legal in Failifornia guns. Elliot Rodger stabbed those people, Elliot Rodger ran those people over. Not the NRA, not Nanny Bloomberg, not his sick fuck MRA micro penis buddies online, not the millions of law abiding gun owners in Murica who haven't killed anyone unlawfully, not the millions of people who want to criminalize them, not you, not me, not even Justine Bieber, just Elliot Rodger.

But all that bullshit aside, you have my sympathy for how that bastard harmed you personally and those you know.

[Lonestar]

At the same time, I was absolutely disgusted by the tabloid journos who descended on IV like a pack of hungry vultures. I was even more disgusted when the usual gun rights nutcases started pulling their usual bullshit, and I'm most glad that we've actually got some concrete gun rights bills shoved through the legislature in response to this madness.

Anyway, sorry for the thread necro.

I do not think you know what the word "rights" means.

[General Zod]

The person you should be disgusted by is Elliot Rodger. The person who you should consider a nutcase is Elliot Rodger. Elliot Rodger pulled the trigger on his still totally legal in Failifornia guns. Elliot Rodger stabbed those people, Elliot Rodger ran those people over. Not the NRA, not Nanny Bloomberg, not his sick fuck MRA micro penis buddies online, not the millions of law abiding gun owners in Murica who haven't killed anyone unlawfully, not the millions of people who want to criminalize them, not you, not me, not even Justine Bieber, just Elliot Rodger.

But all that bullshit aside, you have my sympathy for how that bastard harmed you personally and those you know.

Is there some reason we can't be disgusted by both? Why is it always one or the other?

[Joun_Lord]

Is there some reason we can't be disgusted by both? Why is it always one or the other?

Well it seems somewhat ood to be disgusted by a group of people who did nothing beyond advocate for a right and have a difference of opinion, at most say something uncouth. To be disgusted by someone who has a different opinion and maybe said something assholish alongside someone who literally committed mass murder is a bit unbalanced. Not in the Rodgers sort of way though.

It is I think part of the problem in how some people tend not to blame the actual person who did the deed, who committed the crime, who salamied the sin but rather blame other people only tangentially related to the event.

The NRA did not kill those people, they at most said some stupid shit (which seems to be Wayne La Pierre's job apparently). Gun rights advocates did not shoot those people, at most they tried to protect their rights from attack using the massacre as ammunition. Being disgusted with them is not something I understand too well especially when their crimes if you can even call them that are infinitesimally small compared to the actual crimes of the actual criminal, blaming them for the massacre even less sense.

I get not liking the NRA, hell alot of gun owners don't even like them especially liberal gun owners, because they are a bunch of assclowns who dick ride massacres just as much as Nanny Bloomberg and his ilk. They block even actual really not just we are saying it is but it isn't sensible gun legislation. They are practically a arm of the Republican party. They either completely ignore or demonize liberal gun owners to say nothing of gay gun owners (people that more then most need protection). They've been a bunch of fudds until it was politically convenient to ride the "assault weapons" train.

But the NRA is not all gun owners (#notallgunowners, also took me a minute to find where the hashtag button was on my keyboard), is not all gun rights advocates. Even if one thinks the NRA is, which admittedly there is reason to, shirley they can separate the NRA from others? Apparently not.

[Flagg]

Oh, FFS.

[madd0ct0r]

Its ok Flagg, the current sitatiuon is clearly working.

[Flagg]

Its ok Flagg, the current sitatiuon is clearly working.

No, it's just degenerated into the usual argument with the usual people saying the usual things and any actual human sentiment is now gone. This forum needs an enema.

[Flagg]

I just wanted to make clear when I say "this forum needs an enema" I don't mean "of members". I mean of the type of thing that just happened in this thread. Maraxus2 made a thoughtful post about a nationally covered tragedy and how it has effected the community since. I followed with something along the same lines. Then it immediately degenerated into a gun rights/control argument. That's the type of shit that needs to be flushed out. And I'm not going to pretend I'm not just as guilty of that behavior myself, so please don't take it as if I'm taking the high ground, I know I'm just as deep in the mud as everyone else. Deeper than some.

[biostem]

I just wanted to make clear when I say "this forum needs an enema" I don't mean "of members". I mean of the type of thing that just happened in this thread. Maraxus2 made a thoughtful post about a nationally covered tragedy and how it has effected the community since. I followed with something along the same lines. Then it immediately degenerated into a gun rights/control argument. That's the type of shit that needs to be flushed out. And I'm not going to pretend I'm not just as guilty of that behavior myself, so please don't take it as if I'm taking the high ground, I know I'm just as deep in the mud as everyone else. Deeper than some.

And if that person had stuck to their little memorial, without making a jab at, well, anyone that doesn't think like them, then there wouldn't have been any backlash...

If he had left out the "I was even more disgusted when the usual gun rights nutcases started pulling their usual bullshit, and I'm most glad that we've actually got some concrete gun rights bills shoved through the legislature in response to this madness." part, then there wouldn't have been the response that we got.

[Joun_Lord]

I just wanted to make clear when I say "this forum needs an enema" I don't mean "of members". I mean of the type of thing that just happened in this thread. Maraxus2 made a thoughtful post about a nationally covered tragedy and how it has effected the community since. I followed with something along the same lines. Then it immediately degenerated into a gun rights/control argument. That's the type of shit that needs to be flushed out. And I'm not going to pretend I'm not just as guilty of that behavior myself, so please don't take it as if I'm taking the high ground, I know I'm just as deep in the mud as everyone else. Deeper than some.

Considering I am part of the degeneracy I feel I must say just because something is tragic, which this was, doesn't mean the content of a post is above reproach.

Maraxus2 did make a thoughtful post that he ended with a very unthoughtful and ill informed insult towards an entire group of people that had little or nothing to do with the tragedy he was writing about.

If he had even just said gun laws had needed to be changed, that would have been fine with me. I might have disagreed and said so but not made some long winded post filled with spelling errors and naughty words. But no he insulted directly gun rights advocates, not even the worthy of insult NRA cocksuckers, and made the factually incorrect statement that gun "rights" bills that got shoved through were in response to this horrifying tragedy when in fact they just used the tragedy, the victims as an excuse.

And I hope that bullshit from me does not diminish the sympathy I feel for him, for all the victims who were affected by Elliot Rodger personally or through others and political screwballing about rights and crap SHOULD NOT get in the way of the sympathy and tragedy of situations like this.

But nor should the tragedy allow things to be above criticism.

[madd0ct0r]

hey, at least your post had substance, compared to Lonestar's and Shep's, both of which are fresh enough shitposts I wouldn't put them on my roses for 12 months.

But it dosen't matter. America has decided the situation is fine, the current situation is clearly working, and short of a massive investment in mental health treatment, the deaths of a few dozen a year is an acceptable price to pay to be able to shoot recreationally.

[Joun_Lord]

Well no, its not the America had decided the situation is fine. Nobody thinks its fine save maybe Wayne La Pierre but I think I can say without offending anyone that he's a flipping retard.

The problem is for many people the cure, if one can even call it that, is to them worse then the problem. Criminalizing a whole sect of people, denying constitutional rights, and removing peoples property or making it illegal to own the property because of the actions of a few individuals. It would be kinda maybe like banning or severely restricting sports cars because of street racers.

But the proposed cures aren't actually cures to what ails America. Guns are not the problem, gun violence is a symptom of the problem. Treating the symptom rather then the cause of an ailment is not something medically sound even to me with my massive amounts of medical knowledge stemming from a single day of Eagle Scout first aid training. Like taking some aspirin for a headache brought upon by being stabbed.

Our economy being shit and making people have to resort to unsavory methods to survive, the perpetually poor inner city minorities and rural white trash who have had to do the same even before the economy went down the crapper but now have to do more so, our horrific prison system, our nearly as horrific mental health system where it exists, racism, classism, sexism, and of course most importantly some people have little regard for life are all reasons for these media whored shootings and the vast numbers of other shootings nobody cares about because its two black people or two white people or they can't find some other angle to whore it with.

Firearms are part of the problem, yes, but not anywhere close to being the cause or the primary problem of these shootings. Guns are tools, tools to be used or abused. Most people use those tools, some people abuse them. And thats the same with any tool. Nearly any tool can be used for violent purposes. Guns might be more effective but being killed by a crossbow, a hammer, a fork, a mounted moose head. Like the gun the crossbow has no real use beyond killing something or imitation killing something and few are calling for its ban save Pope Innocent II.

Removing guns only stops gun violence, does not stop the violence. Thats a quarter assed fix that saves no real lives and leaves the actual problem alone, people get to pat themselves on the ass and do nothing else.

Also its not just shooting recreationally people want to do. Some people want to shoot professionally!

Also also some people use firearms to hunt to eat, either because they need to supplement their diet intake or because they feel like it. Some people want them to protect themselves and others. Not being John Wayne Gacy Cowboys blasting bad guys but to protect their lives, their homes, their families, their little yapping shit machine dog. Still others want weapons to collect, either for historical purposes or for financial ones. Some people need guns because they have teensy tiny dongs or I guess tits and having a gun is the only way they can feel like a man or woman.

Its not just people wanting blast clay pigeons or zombie target posters is my point.

[biostem]

hey, at least your post had substance, compared to Lonestar's and Shep's, both of which are fresh enough shitposts I wouldn't put them on my roses for 12 months.

But it dosen't matter. America has decided the situation is fine, the current situation is clearly working, and short of a massive investment in mental health treatment, the deaths of a few dozen a year is an acceptable price to pay to be able to shoot recreationally.

Far more deaths are caused by pistols... why don't any of these gun laws focus on removing them? The whole "assault weapon" category is also a politically motivated measure to piggyback on the much more dangerous "assault rifles", which have been restricted since the 30's. FYI, an "assault weapon" is literally a regular rifle with some decorations on it, nothing more...

[Crazedwraith]

hey, at least your post had substance, compared to Lonestar's and Shep's, both of which are fresh enough shitposts I wouldn't put them on my roses for 12 months.

But it dosen't matter. America has decided the situation is fine, the current situation is clearly working, and short of a massive investment in mental health treatment, the deaths of a few dozen a year is an acceptable price to pay to be able to shoot recreationally.

Far more deaths are caused by pistols... why don't any of these gun laws focus on removing them? The whole "assault weapon" category is also a politically motivated measure to piggyback on the much more dangerous "assault rifles", which have been restricted since the 30's. FYI, an "assault weapon" is literally a regular rifle with some decorations on it, nothing more...

How is that in any way related to what Maddoctor said?

[biostem]

hey, at least your post had substance, compared to Lonestar's and Shep's, both of which are fresh enough shitposts I wouldn't put them on my roses for 12 months.

But it dosen't matter. America has decided the situation is fine, the current situation is clearly working, and short of a massive investment in mental health treatment, the deaths of a few dozen a year is an acceptable price to pay to be able to shoot recreationally.

Far more deaths are caused by pistols... why don't any of these gun laws focus on removing them? The whole "assault weapon" category is also a politically motivated measure to piggyback on the much more dangerous "assault rifles", which have been restricted since the 30's. FYI, an "assault weapon" is literally a regular rifle with some decorations on it, nothing more...

How is that in any way related to what Maddoctor said?

It's in reference to the "America has decided the situation is fine" part - it's basically a passive-aggressive response to anyone arguing against all the various gun laws that get proposed/passed whenever these horrible events occur...