Texas school shooting happening now

[Broomstick]

Given that his stance is the same one I've seen from other people on forums like SB, I assume he thinks changing your forum avatar and making more passionate posts on facebook.

That's as fucking hilarious as the guy some years back claiming to be some sort of edgelord for riding his bicycle in the city.

Or this guy:

[ray245]

Alright, fuckstick, what do you think I personally should do? C'mon, you're up on the soapbox now. It's not like I have an arsenal in my basement, I've never owned a gun (though I have considered it). I've voted for candidates for office who are pro-control, fuck all that did. What the fuck actual personal power do you think I have?

Change the rhetoric. What you're doing is creating an illusion of a "middle-ground" solution when there really isn't. Feel free to defend the right to bear arms, if you are willing to acknowledge that comes with the risk of school shootings every other year. Or oppose harsh gun controls and be willing to consider the repeal of the 2nd amendment as a moral (even if unfeasible) solution to gun violence.

Given that his stance is the same one I've seen from other people on forums like SB, I assume he thinks changing your forum avatar and making more passionate posts on facebook.

Oh please. Words have power because it's been used in our daily conversations. A bottom-up change is done by random people talking to each other and affirming certain viewpoints. It's not about convincing politicians or anyone in power, it's about convincing people we personally interact with. If you keep selling the idea of a "middle-ground" solution as a realistic goal, then there will be plenty of other people who will be convinced by you.

A "middle-ground" solution might work in other countries, but there is nothing that convinced me that Americans have the will to actually go through with it.

[Broomstick]

Alright, fuckstick, what do you think I personally should do? C'mon, you're up on the soapbox now. It's not like I have an arsenal in my basement, I've never owned a gun (though I have considered it). I've voted for candidates for office who are pro-control, fuck all that did. What the fuck actual personal power do you think I have?

Change the rhetoric. What you're doing is creating an illusion of a "middle-ground" solution when there really isn't. Feel free to defend the right to bear arms, if you are willing to acknowledge that comes with the risk of school shootings every other year. Or oppose harsh gun controls and be willing to consider the repeal of the 2nd amendment as a moral (even if unfeasible) solution to gun violence.

Just TALKING does jack and shit. I've been talking for years, it's done fuck-all.

DEFINE your terms, asshat. What, to you, is "middle-ground"?

I defend the right to self-defense, which might have been a better way to put it back in the day than to say "right to bear arms".

And we're not having a school shooting "every other other year" we're having one ONCE A FUCKING WEEK. Try to be a little knowledgeable about the subject you're trolling. It's getting worse.

And, sorry, there is no "repealing" ANY US constitutional amendment because the government isn't structured that way. We can add another amendment, but there's no wiping out the original. The US constitution wear its history, good or bad. It will always be there, just as there will always be a reference to slavery in it even if later amendments abolished it legally.

A "middle-ground" solution might work in other countries, but there is nothing that convinced me that Americans have the will to actually go through with it.

So... explain why you think what works in all those other countries couldn't possibly work in the US... other than prejudice on your part.

[ray245]

Just TALKING does jack and shit. I've been talking for years, it's done fuck-all.

DEFINE your terms, asshat. What, to you, is "middle-ground"?

I defend the right to self-defense, which might have been a better way to put it back in the day than to say "right to bear arms".

And we're not having a school shooting "every other other year" we're having one ONCE A FUCKING WEEK. Try to be a little knowledgeable about the subject you're trolling. It's getting worse.

So countries that have harsher gun laws do not have a right to self-defense? So it's worse than I thought, and you think I'm trolling? How is saying there are only two legitimate positions to take trolling?

"middle-ground" is assuming there is an alternative way between defending the 2nd amendment and accepting the risks involved and adding a new amendment that put an end to the constitutional right to bear arms which would actually make it much, much harder to gain access to firearms.

It's talking about a "middle-ground" approach that gets the US in such a mess. Every time there's a shooting, someone will talk about "addressing the underlying issues" even when every knew there will be nothing done.

And, sorry, there is no "repealing" ANY US constitutional amendment because the government isn't structured that way. We can add another amendment, but there's no wiping out the original. The US constitution wear its history, good or bad. It will always be there, just as there will always be a reference to slavery in it even if later amendments abolished it legally.

Then add a new amendment.

So... explain why you think what works in all those other countries couldn't possibly work in the US... other than prejudice on your part.

Because there's been talk about those solutions for decades and there's no real effort to fund those programs. Improving mental health? This is a country that has problems with pushing for universal health care for crying out loud. Do you seriously think there's a serious effort to improve mental health and address the "underlying factors"?

I'm fucking annoyed with Americans talking about the "underlying factors" as if there can be serious effort to address them. Convince me that these changes are realistically possible and a cop-out by those defending the 2nd amendment.

This feels like a cop-out to me. I'm tired of this. Unless you can show there is a real political will to "address the underlying causes", I'm not incline to agree with your position.

Call me a troll for all you want, but you've done nothing to show your position has helped the US in any way. I expect you to be better than resorting to silly name-calling.

[ray245]

Put it this way Broomstick:

What you've been talking about for years has not helped the US in any way. I think your position itself is part of the bigger problem. You think there is a way to address the problem by tackling issues like mental health. I heard this repeated again and again in every school shooting.

[Broomstick]

So countries that have harsher gun laws do not have a right to self-defense?

No, fuckwit, that is NOT what I said.

But let me clarify, since you're so stupid: You have a right to defend yourself, but that is NOT the same as having a "right" to own a particular weapon. There are many ways to defend yourself, something that is apparently lost on both yourself AND the people who fellatio guns. A "right" to own a gun does not inherently mean a "right" to own a AK-47, a semi-automatic, or even a gun that shoots more than once without reloading. It doesn't mean you have a right to own a gun at all.

"middle-ground" is assuming there is an alternative way between defending the 2nd amendment and accepting the risks involved and adding a new amendment that put an end to the constitutional right to bear arms which would actually make it much, much harder to gain access to firearms.

Which works in dozens of other countries so no, it's not impossible to do this.

It's talking about a "middle-ground" approach that gets the US in such a mess. Every time there's a shooting, someone will talk about "addressing the underlying issues" even when every knew there will be nothing done.

I am all for addressing the underlying issues because that will lower violence overall in society but I agree there has been far too much lip service and not enough dollars where it counts.

You HAVE TO address the underlying issues of violence or, even if you ban guns, you'll still have people building bombs, stabbing with knives, throwing acid, or running down people with trucks. Yes, that will probably result in fewer deaths than the Las Vegas shooting but while it's a good beginning I don't find it a satisfactory end.

So... explain why you think what works in all those other countries couldn't possibly work in the US... other than prejudice on your part.

Because there's been talk about those solutions for decades and there's no real effort to fund those programs. Improving mental health? This is a country that has problems with pushing for universal health care for crying out loud. Do you seriously think there's a serious effort to improve mental health and address the "underlying factors"?

No, I don't but that's not the point - the point being that other countries actually did something. They didn't JUST talk about doing shit, they DID shit. THAT is the problem here, too many Americans paying lip service but Og forbid they actually spend money on anything but the military and give-backs to the rich. That is the problem - cut after cut to social services that actually help people, kicking people when they're down, and shitting on anyone lower down on the social ladder instead of actually doing something to help.

This feels like a cop-out to me. I'm tired of this. Unless you can show there is a real political will to "address the underlying causes", I'm not incline to agree with your position.

What position do you think I'm advocating? Or is your bigoted little self assuming I'm just another caricature of whatever you think Americans are?

No, there is NOT a political will to fix the real, underlying problems - that IS the problem! That is why I'm disgusted. It's nothing but lip service. But that's not MY position, that my observation. My position is that until there IS actual action there will be no progress, only worsening bloodshed. That is not what I want, it's what I see happening, and what's so fucking frustrating is that there is fuck all I can personally do about it. So shove your attitude up your ass, shitstick, I don't need YOU to kick me and berate me for not fixing something that I have no power to fix.

Call me a troll for all you want, but you've done nothing to show your position has helped the US in any way. I expect you to be better than resorting to silly name-calling.

My "position"? You clearly have no idea what my position actually is. And it hasn't helped because I've failed to convinced 300 million other people that I'm right. Sorry I haven't saved the world you mewling piece of offal, what use are YOU to the world other than future fertilizer?

[ray245]

Yes, Broomstick. I'm an idiot.

[Broomstick]

Put it this way Broomstick:

What you've been talking about for years has not helped the US in any way. I think your position itself is part of the bigger problem. You think there is a way to address the problem by tackling issues like mental health. I heard this repeated again and again in every school shooting.

Funny... I don't recall "tackling mental health" to be one of my main points. It certainly is a laudable goal, but it's only one part of the picture. I also think there should be much more stringent controls on who can have a gun, and much stricter limits on what sort of guns are available to the average person. But hey, more distortion helps the argument.

Frankly, there is nothing wrong with "address mental health", the problem is JUST talking about it.

I have not JUST talked about fixing social problems in this country. I worked for goddamned years at a clinic that treated drug addicts because I believe treatment is better than incarceration. I have spent my own money to deliver food to homeless shelters and pantries. I have consistently voted for candidates that promised to address social issues but it just sucks that most of the people I vote for lose.

You see, unlike a lot of Americans I've actually put some skin in the game. That's one reason I'm tired. It's soul-sucking work to show up every day to a clinic where the employees have to bring their own toilet paper because they state has decided not to pay its bills but yet those of us working there have a quaint notion that if you're going to tackle some of these problems you have to do things like make a commitment and not run away at the first sign of work, much less hardship.

Yes, tackling mental health WOULD help - IF THAT WAS ACTUALLY DONE! It's not. It's given lip service for a few days, along with breathless descriptions of wounds and shooter motivations, and then it's forgotten. THAT IS THE PROBLEM. It's not the solutions have been found wanting, they've never been tried. Which seems to have eluded your grasp.

Talk does fuck-all. You have to DO something. That's one of the biggest obstacles here, my fellow Americans won't get up off their fat asses and DO SOMETHING. They won't make the tiniest of sacrifices.

I wouldn't mind so much your declaration of their collective failure if they had actually tried anything but they haven't. You're shitting on them for the wrong reasons, and yes, that's why you're an idiot.

The reason they DON'T do anything? Because based on what has happened everywhere else actually doing what has been suggested probably WOULD result in changes... and these days Americans fear change.

[Broomstick]

Yes, Broomstick. I'm an idiot.

Yes, yes you are.

[NecronLord]

The people in charge don't give a fuck and don't mind collateral damage" then what were they supposed to have done differently? Airport style controlled access and screening? Mandatory psych evals? Repeal the 2nd? What?

The thing is the gun lobby has become so dominant that they've even changed the 2nd amendment's previously relatively settled interpretation as referring only to the keeping of such weapons as relevant to the national security, for instance. Contemplate that; this is not something that's been shackled to you folks from the 19th century - for much of the 20th century the default assumption was that the 2nd amendment referred at least in part to the right of the states to have a well regulated militia - IE the national guard - and not individuals, it is only since 2001 that the judicial interpretation of the amendment as referring to an individual right has been settled.

[Gandalf]

The reason they DON'T do anything? Because based on what has happened everywhere else actually doing what has been suggested probably WOULD result in changes... and these days Americans fear change.

When were Americans in favour of changes, especially big ones?

[MKSheppard]

Let's recap

...stole someone else's guns (his father's) bypassing even "universal" background checks and age limits
...used a constitutionally protected weapon (.38 special revolver via Heller)
...used a "hunting weapon" (Remington 870 pump shottie with 5 round capacity with birdshot)

And before you say: "Let's require safe storage laws!" the Supreme Court ruled that unconstitutional in striking down DC's restrictive handgun permitting schemes which required "safe storage".

So uh, what realistic options do you actually suggest?

PS: It appears he may have sawed off the shotgun to get it under his Trenchcoat, a National Firearms Act violation.

[Broomstick]

Let's recap

...stole someone else's guns (his father's) bypassing even "universal" background checks and age limits
...used a constitutionally protected weapon (.38 special revolver via Heller)
...used a "hunting weapon" (Remington 870 pump shottie with 5 round capacity with birdshot)

And before you say: "Let's require safe storage laws!" the Supreme Court ruled that unconstitutional in striking down DC's restrictive handgun permitting schemes which required "safe storage".

So uh, what realistic options do you actually suggest?

For the sake of discussion, and not necessarily "realistic" (Whatever that means)...

... you could introduce legal liabilities for people who fail to properly secure their weapons (for whatever definition of "properly" you care to use). Of course, no security is perfect, I would not advocate prosecuting people who did properly store their weaponry but that security was defeated by a determined bad guy.

... Given that the body count was lower than some other recent incidents involving semi-automatic weapons, you could argue that non-semi guns (in this case, a .38 revolver and a pump-action shotgun) did limit death, maiming, and wounding (one kid was shot in the head and apparently escaped serious injury - not like with a more lethal semi-auto/ammo combination than a .38 revolver). So - the damage was less than it might otherwise have been. Still not a happy outcome, but I could see using that as an argument to restrict certain types of guns/ammo even if it wouldn't prevent all killing/maiming.

I don't have any illusions we're going to prevent all murders. That still leaves the field open to discuss damage control. And note that the above were thrown out more for discussion and are not necessarily my own personal position on these topics.

[Gandalf]

"Realistic" presumably means laws which have a good chance of actually working as intended. Prohibition, while a good idea did not work because of the cultural status of alcohol.

[LaCroix]

The problem with other countries' gun laws and the USA is that other countries' citizen usually (99%) do not believe they need a gun to defend themselves.
The "right to self defense" is an extremely theoretical thing that nobody would ever assume to happen to them.

We feel safe.
Of course, women do have the rrelevant fear of being assaulted (at a fraction the rate of what happens in the US),
and we have the occasional murder, but we do not believe that somebody would ever come to our house and kill us.
Rob us when nobody is home, maybe, but we never, ever thing about a chance that a thief would kill us when walked in, or would enter our flat when we are at home. (Occurences when a home invader does anything other than run away or - very rarely - ties up an elderly person he stumbles upon are HUGE national headline material...)

And therefore, we believe guns to be too dangerous for the slim chance we might ever need it.
We consider tasers and pepperspray to be "extreme" measures of self defense.
(and we do trust our police, which is highly trained and does not pose a threat to the population)

Unless you can manage to make America safe again, you can't do guns our way.

Edit - this expanses to the criminal side, too.
Since no thief needs to fear being shot by a home owner, and knows the police will not turn him into a sieve at first sight, our criminals do not need to pack heat. Thus, our cycle of violence tends to unwind itself, to some extent.

[Zwinmar]

One of the big problems with any solution is the police themselves, or more specifically, the fear of that the cop involved with be one of the ones who will gun someone down because they might, theoretically, maybe, could have a gun. Even some hard core Democrats say that it is okay for them to do so because, "they have the right to go home to their family." And yes, that is a direct quote from two different ones I have spoken with. Do I even need to explain how messed up it is that a Police Officer, someone sworn to serve and protect the populace, are executing those same people?

Now, explain to me how anyone can feel safe when the people who are supposed to protect them are the ones pulling the trigger? That isn't taking into account those groups who arn't the proper creed, skin color, or just look weird. If I were black or perceived as Muslim in this country I would be scared for my life every time I saw a police cruiser rolling down the street.

[Raw Shark]

I'll go ahead and claim the middle of the road here: I am a very responsible and ethical shooter. I am extremely liberal, and I was raised with guns and you can have them have from my etc etc. I separate these issues from liberalism and conservatism because duh. Guns are a tool like a hammer or a saw, not your dick or your politics. I have used them to feed my family and would again gladly. Needless to say, this is my view of the way that should be held by the proper American, but I do not always expect that. That said, characterizing "cold from my dead hands" as a necessarily-conservative stance is not necessarily one that I will not debate. I am a green gunman, and proud of it. You want my guns, you want my grandma to starve, and I do not take kindly. I kill humanely, I campaign for environmental preservation, and I sleep well at night.

[U.P. Cinnabar]

Guns are a tool like a hammer or a saw, not your dick or your politics.

And, like a hammer or a saw, it can do serious harm, if you misuse it. Or, if you're taught to misuse it.

[Raw Shark]

And, like a hammer or a saw, it can do serious harm, if you misuse it. Or, if you're taught to misuse it.

I was. But I chose otherwise. Think for yourselves, kids.

[U.P. Cinnabar]

Hard to do with a culture that associates violence and vigilantism as masculine privilege, Shark.

[Aether]

Guns are a tool like a hammer or a saw, not your dick or your politics.

And, like a hammer or a saw, it can do serious harm, if you misuse it. Or, if you're taught to misuse it.

"A gun is just a tool" is the stupidest defense of a firearm. They are not tools, at least not in the sense of a hammer, saw, or screwdriver. And like a gun anything can be used to cause harm, but it is not their primary function. Let's be very clear and very real about this.

Firearms either 1) maim or 2) kill. You can invent tertiary uses of firearms like target practice. People in the US own a firearm to defend themselves against a tyrannical government (LOL) or other civilians.

[U.P. Cinnabar]

Well, no shit, Dick Tracy.

I'm not defending firearms, I'm stating fact. A gun is a tool we made to kill or maim other living beings, and one of the first steps we need to take is to de-romanticize them and ram home what guns are, what they do, and why they should be the absolute last resort.

That's only the first step, and if we stop there, we're going to be back to square one, as people will interpret last resort to mean anything they goddamned well please, as long as it lets them play out their violent power fantasies.

Gun regulation is essential, but, also not enough on its own, as certain people and our culture are both in opposition to the enforcement to the regulations already on the books, let alone any new ones.

This same culture, and those same certain people are against educating people on what guns are, and what they do, and on teaching alternatives to problem solving through violence.

What has to change is our culture. We have to take a good, honest look at ourselves and resolve to change that which is killing us. More importantly, we have to want to change, and not just make excuses for being assholes and maintaining the self-serving status quo.

Or, as the Oils once said, man must change or man must burn.

Problem is, we don't want to change, except for the worst, and we no longer care that the status quo is hazardous to our health, as long as it serves our selfish desires.

[Eulogy]

"A gun is just a tool" is the stupidest defense of a firearm. They are not tools, at least not in the sense of a hammer, saw, or screwdriver. And like a gun anything can be used to cause harm, but it is not their primary function. Let's be very clear and very real about this.

Firearms either 1) maim or 2) kill. You can invent tertiary uses of firearms like target practice. People in the US own a firearm to defend themselves against a tyrannical government (LOL) or other civilians.

Guns are weapons, and weapons are tools used to do harm and death. Your assertion is therefore utterly incorrect.

Like any other tool, whether the use of it ultimately results in benefit or ill depends on who uses it.

[Aether]

A gun is a tool we made to kill or maim other living beings,

Guns are weapons, and weapons are tools used to do harm and death. Your assertion is therefore utterly incorrect.

Praise the Lord that I will never know how it feels to be so utterly pedantic about a definition while missing the point entirely.

It's stupid, intellectually lazy, infantile, and just plain bad argumentation to compare something which has a sole purpose of killing or maiming to something that patently, and clearly does not. Especially when it comes to serious discussions regarding laws, regulations, training, and access.

[Eulogy]

Praise the Lord that I will never know how it feels to be so utterly pedantic about a definition while missing the point entirely.

It's stupid, intellectually lazy, infantile, and just plain bad argumentation to compare something which has a sole purpose of killing or maiming to something that patently, and clearly does not. Especially when it comes to serious discussions regarding laws, regulations, training, and access.

Got butthurt that we called you out on your shit, eh? You're the one here trying to seriously argue that weapons are somehow not tools even though they are things built for a purpose just like a hammer, or a phone, or a ruler, or a mirror, and the fact that they are weapons made to harm and kill doesn't make them not-tools.

Flare guns are not (usually) used to harm or kill, even though they are guns. Does that make them not a tool?