Ongoing Mass Shooting Thread #3... that's right, a third thread. Because 'Murica.

[Moonlit_Angel]

I think these kids are full of righteous anger, not rhetoric. If I had kids I'd be damn proud if my kids were like that.

They can spew their rhetoric all hours of the day and night. They are growing up in a world in which they have to live in fear of being shot at school. Every day, and on Sunday nights. I didn't grow up in that world, so who am I to tell them what they can and cannot say?

Agreed.

Also, they're teenagers. So yeah, their speech may not always be super polished, yeah, it may sometimes come off over the top or dramatic or awkward or whatever other criticisms one might have of that sort. That's how teenagers often are. I'm sure people probably said similar things about all the teenagers who protested the Vietnam War back in the day, too. Doesn't mean their message is any less valid or worth listening to, though.

Bottom line, their passion and hearts are clearly in the right place, and they're out there actually trying to DO something, which is certainly more than I can say for some of the adults in this country. Any adult who thinks it's okay to mock and make fun of teenagers who are getting politically involved needs to seriously reexamine their life and their attitudes.

 

[Nick66]

Any adult who thinks it's okay to mock and make fun of teenagers who are getting politically involved needs to seriously reexamine their life and their attitudes.

I still don't get what there is to mock about a 4.1 GPA. Am I missing something?

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

These kids and their "rhetoric" have done more in 6 weeks than most politicians do in a career.

 

[DaveC]

most underrated emoji of all time.

 

[Irvine511]

I still don't get what there is to mock about a 4.1 GPA. Am I missing something?

it sounds like an inflated, snowflake GPA meant to keep his precious self-esteem intact and likely filled with nonsense Marxist classes about the construction of race and gender. and Common Core math.

 

[Nick66]

it sounds like an inflated, snowflake GPA meant to keep his precious self-esteem intact and likely filled with nonsense Marxist classes about the construction of race and gender

That's absurd...everyone knows those classes don't start until you get to Uni!

and Common Core math.

I wish they'd had that Common Core math in the UK. Calculus is the reason I was a history major.

 

[Irvine511]

That's absurd...everyone knows those classes don't start until you get to Uni

Well, Parkland is a really good school.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Laura apologized to him on Twitter, in the spirit of Holy Week. Barf. She apologized because advertisers were dropping out of her show.

David Hogg tweeted a list of her advertisers. You go David.

I would ask Laura, is it in the spirit of Holy Week to go after a teenager who has been hiding in a classroom while his classmates get shot? All in the name of your precious guns. Is it in that spirit for other like minded people to compare him to Hitler and call those kids Hitler youth? WWJD? What a hypocrite she is.

 

[Gzusfrk]

So just because David Hogg is a child, and goes to a school where there was a horrible shooting, doesn't mean people aren't able to critique his views. It's embarrassing, but that's what the left was counting on, pushing children to the forefront to do their dirty work for them, then saying, " you can't criticize him! He's a victim, a child!"

And the irony is, this kid is the best gun salesman and NRA fundraiser since Barack Obama! And that's saying something!

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

So just because David Hogg is a child, and goes to a school where there was a horrible shooting, doesn't mean people aren't able to critique his views.

If you'd like to explain to me how an adult, who's supposed to know better, making fun of a teenager's GPA is a valid criticism of their views on gun control, I'd really love to hear it.

Criticism of their stance is perfectly fine. Criticism of how they're constructing their arguments, or their policy suggestions, is also valid. I don't doubt these kids would happily welcome a discussion like that.

Personal attacks and mocking them, having people call them "crisis actors" and telling them they don't have the "experience" necessary to speak up and making fun of their GPAs and such? Not so much. If that's the best way an adult knows how to communicate with a teenager, then that's just sad.

It's embarrassing, but that's what the left was counting on, pushing children to the forefront to do their dirty work for them, then saying, " you can't criticize him! He's a victim, a child!"

And the irony is, this kid is the best gun salesman and NRA fundraiser since Barack Obama! And that's saying something!

...wow.

 

[Diemen]

In case you didn’t notice, Ingraham wasn’t critiquing his views - she was mocking him for not getting accepted to a few universities.

And the irony is, this kid is the best gun salesman and NRA fundraiser since Barack Obama! And that's saying something!

You mean how the NRA uses fear mongering to scare all-too-gullible people into thinking the government is coming for their guns when they’re not?

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

So just because David Hogg is a child, and goes to a school where there was a horrible shooting, doesn't mean people aren't able to critique his views. It's embarrassing, but that's what the left was counting on, pushing children to the forefront to do their dirty work for them, then saying, " you can't criticize him! He's a victim, a child!"

And the irony is, this kid is the best gun salesman and NRA fundraiser since Barack Obama! And that's saying something!

Yes, the NRA loves when kids get killed. Always have. It's good for business.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Those kids pushed themselves to the forefront. Because they care about kids being murdered in schools. How many adults care enough about that, that is the question. Seems to me the kids have become the adults.

Keep buying those guns to keep you safe and warm.

 

[Irvine511]

So just because David Hogg is a child, and goes to a school where there was a horrible shooting, doesn't mean people aren't able to critique his views. It's embarrassing, but that's what the left was counting on, pushing children to the forefront to do their dirty work for them, then saying, " you can't criticize him! He's a victim, a child!"

And the irony is, this kid is the best gun salesman and NRA fundraiser since Barack Obama! And that's saying something!

So you are an evangelical who did vote for Trump.

 

[BVS]

So just because David Hogg is a child, and goes to a school where there was a horrible shooting, doesn't mean people aren't able to critique his views. It's embarrassing, but that's what the left was counting on, pushing children to the forefront to do their dirty work for them, then saying, " you can't criticize him! He's a victim, a child!"

And the irony is, this kid is the best gun salesman and NRA fundraiser since Barack Obama! And that's saying something!

Can you show me who said you can’t criticize his views?

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

I'm of the opinion that people who believe in magic sky people shouldn't own fire arms.

 

[Gzusfrk]

I'm of the opinion that people who believe in magic sky people shouldn't own fire arms.

That's a nice opinion, too bad you live in America and the Constitution says otherwise.

I'm of the opinion that facts don't care about your feelings

Here's a fact: If all NON -NRA members would stop shooting people, gun violence would go down by 100%!.

 

[BVS]

I'm of the opinion that facts don't care about your feelings

Here's a fact: If all NON -NRA members would stop shooting people, gun violence would go down by 100%!.

These are both nice cut and paste jobs from Twitter, yet they contradict each other.

And I completely agree with the first one, hence why I find most of your fym posts to be bs.

The second one, as popular as it is on Twitter, isn’t fact.

So until you learn basic definitions of words and understand the difference between fact and feelings, I suggest staying away from such c/p jobs.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

That's a nice opinion, too bad you live in America and the Constitution says otherwise.

I'm of the opinion that facts don't care about your feelings

Here's a fact: If all NON -NRA members would stop shooting people, gun violence would go down by 100%!.

The Constitution also says you can change it.

I'm also of the opinion that you watch too much Fox News.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

To that point, I fundamentally disagree with constitutionalist conservatism. Glorifying a document simply because of some deep rooted nationalism by insisting it is near holy undermines why it's actually a well written document. It's not unique in that sense worthier. It's designed to change. Sorry constitutional conservatives - your founding fathers were progressives.

 

[Irvine511]

To that point, I fundamentally disagree with constitutionalist conservatism. Glorifying a document simply because of some deep rooted nationalism by insisting it is near holy undermines why it's actually a well written document. It's not unique in that sense worthier. It's designed to change. Sorry constitutional conservatives - your founding fathers were progressives.

You seem to be forgetting the fact that Jesus himself wrote the constitution.

 

[Nick66]

The Constitution is designed to be able to be changed, but the process for changing it is, also by design, incredibly difficult and requires more or less national consensus. When you design something that's very difficult to change, that in itself can be considered conservative.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

Except we have a system of laws that also exhibit change. The whole point is dynamics.

Being difficult to change just avoids populism. You know, the kind that would elect their cult leader as president for life. That ability to resist change is intentional and good.

But ultimately it is still designed to change. If it was not, you could explicitly have non-voidable amendments, or lack of amendments entirely.

 

[Wide Awake n AZ]

That's a nice opinion, too bad you live in America and the Constitution says otherwise.

Fact: None of the controls being pushed by this movement are against the constitutional protection of 2A, per the Supreme Court ( a Supreme Court that has a majority appointed by GOP Presidents).

Fact: If 2A were to be repealed, it would be a massive public desire requiring 2/3rds of Congress and 3/4ths of states, not population. So MT = CA.

If that were to happen, it would be democracy, representative government, AND the will of the people in action. And would be constitutionally sound.

So please...on behalf of all the people who spout 2A "Rights", where is your constitutional right being abridged in any of these scenarios? Where?

If it is unconstitutional, it will be deemed unconstitutional. As the system we have in place to determine constitutional muster is pretty clear.

So, again...tell me where the constitution says otherwise on any actions being taken by these students, or any of the controls being requested by this movement?

You can't. Because you, and your cronies, have mistaken the word "rights" for "wants". Either the controls requested pass constitutional muster, or they don't. No rights abridged. Either 2A gets repealed by the rules set forth by the authors of the constitution, or it doesn't. Period.

This has never been about your "rights". You just WANT what you want.

Except only your side threatens bloodshed if they lose.

 

[Nick66]

It's hard to overstate what a massive undertaking repealing the Second Amendment would be. And the all but impossible task of getting it repealed would only be the first step. That would do nothing but simply free up the Feds and the States to further regulate firearms...you'd still have to pass those laws and regulations. Right now now you can't even get expanded background checks passed.

And then, once you do that, you have perhaps the most painful, difficult bit...enforcing the new laws. Even if you repealed the Second, and even if you passed OZ or UK style laws prohibiting most ownership of firearms, you'd have to actually confiscate the 350+ million guns that are in the US (assuming you banned most of them). By contrast, Australia confiscated roughly one million guns after their ban.

And Australia doesn't have nearly the gun culture the US has. Many US gun owners own multiple firearms. In fact, the average gun owner owns 3-4 firearms. Which means they like guns....a lot. They're not going to give them up easily. To say nothing of the millions and millions of illegal weapons on the streets. We're talking about something that would take decades, and wouldn't be done without a cultural war and bloodshed.

That's why, even people who support repealing the Second Amendment don't talk about it or push for it. There's a reason why gun control advocates got annoyed when former Justice Stevens recently wrote an op-ed calling for repeal. One, it's pie in the sky. Two, you'd turn large majorities of Americans against you, including those who support "common sense" gun control.

What makes all of this really sad and ironic is that and outright ban is probably the only thing that's going to seriously bring gun violence down (absent fixing the broken culture and underlying problems). All this stuff these kids are suggesting is fine (and probably perfectly Constitutional), but they won't even solve the problem of school mass shootings, much less gun violence overall.

 

[DaveC]

And Australia doesn't have nearly the gun culture the US has. Many US gun owners own multiple firearms. In fact, the average gun owner owns 3-4 firearms. Which means they like guns....a lot. They're not going to give them up easily. To say nothing of the millions and millions of illegal weapons on the streets. We're talking about something that would take decades, and wouldn't be done without a cultural war and bloodshed.

well yes but it's not like most americans own a gun or two and you'd have to scour the country from top to bottom. the majority of the guns in america are owned by only 3% of the population. it's those people that hoard guns that you'll have to go after but again, it's only 3% of americans and undoubtedly the federal government knows where most of these people are. and it's not like they'll all be unreasonable and start shooting at federal agents (although some will of course), many will comply and hand over their guns if it came down to it. surely there would also be some sort of buyback program where i'm sure a great many americans would also willingly hand in guns they don't want or use anymore for cash.

some people would resist, for sure and there would definitely be blood but i don't think it would be the decades-long battle you're predicting here. and also, getting 100% of them is a pipe dream anyways. just the reduction in the number of guns on the streets from people who would willingly comply and hand in what they have would dramatically reduce gun violence.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...half-of-americas-guns/?utm_term=.dd073d088a65

 

[Wide Awake n AZ]

It's hard to overstate what a massive undertaking repealing the Second Amendment would be. And the all but impossible task of getting it repealed would only be the first step. That would do nothing but simply free up the Feds and the States to further regulate firearms...you'd still have to pass those laws and regulations. Right now now you can't even get expanded background checks passed.

And then, once you do that, you have perhaps the most painful, difficult bit...enforcing the new laws. Even if you repealed the Second, and even if you passed OZ or UK style laws prohibiting most ownership of firearms, you'd have to actually confiscate the 350+ million guns that are in the US (assuming you banned most of them). By contrast, Australia confiscated roughly one million guns after their ban.

And Australia doesn't have nearly the gun culture the US has. Many US gun owners own multiple firearms. In fact, the average gun owner owns 3-4 firearms. Which means they like guns....a lot. They're not going to give them up easily. To say nothing of the millions and millions of illegal weapons on the streets. We're talking about something that would take decades, and wouldn't be done without a cultural war and bloodshed.

That's why, even people who support repealing the Second Amendment don't talk about it or push for it. There's a reason why gun control advocates got annoyed when former Justice Stevens recently wrote an op-ed calling for repeal. One, it's pie in the sky. Two, you'd turn large majorities of Americans against you, including those who support "common sense" gun control.

What makes all of this really sad and ironic is that and outright ban is probably the only thing that's going to seriously bring gun violence down (absent fixing the broken culture and underlying problems). All this stuff these kids are suggesting is fine (and probably perfectly Constitutional), but they won't even solve the problem of school mass shootings, much less gun violence overall.

All of that is correct...until the end, which is an opinion. At least one (Parkland) would have been prevented if there had been a ban on those weapons or a 21 year old age law...while conservatives point to the "massive failure" of local police and the FBI, none of them could do anything because he legally possessed the firearms.

As for the rest of the opinion...capacity limits do, in fact, help mitigate damage in mass shootings. The Jared Loughner shooting of Gabby Giffords is an example...he had to reload, did not have a larger weapon, and was tackled on reload. Give a hero a chance. And, yes, with time, the legal availability of weapons impacts access. Take a look at Columbine...all they needed to do was go to a gun show with their friend who was 18...they were with her, and money was exchanged in plain view. Legal purchase. Those suburban dumbfucks wouldn't have been black marketing anything.

And waiting periods save lives in domestic violence situations

 

[BVS]

well yes but it's not like most americans own a gun or two and you'd have to scour the country from top to bottom. the majority of the guns in america are owned by only 3% of the population. it's those people that hoard guns that you'll have to go after but again, it's only 3% of americans and undoubtedly the federal government knows where most of these people are. and it's not like they'll all be unreasonable and start shooting at federal agents (although some will of course), many will comply and hand over their guns if it came down to it. surely there would also be some sort of buyback program where i'm sure a great many americans would also willingly hand in guns they don't want or use anymore for cash.

some people would resist, for sure and there would definitely be blood but i don't think it would be the decades-long battle you're predicting here. and also, getting 100% of them is a pipe dream anyways. just the reduction in the number of guns on the streets from people who would willingly comply and hand in what they have would dramatically reduce gun violence.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...half-of-americas-guns/?utm_term=.dd073d088a65

Maybe it's because I live in TX, but I find those numbers unbelievable.

I would imagine there are a lot of people who don't admit they own guns; either out of fear you'll take them or stigma. But your point remains.

 

[Nick66]

All of that is correct...until the end, which is an opinion. At least one (Parkland) would have been prevented if there had been a ban on those weapons or a 21 year old age law...while conservatives point to the "massive failure" of local police and the FBI, none of them could do anything because he legally possessed the firearms.

As for the rest of the opinion...capacity limits do, in fact, help mitigate damage in mass shootings. The Jared Loughner shooting of Gabby Giffords is an example...he had to reload, did not have a larger weapon, and was tackled on reload. Give a hero a chance. And, yes, with time, the legal availability of weapons impacts access. Take a look at Columbine...all they needed to do was go to a gun show with their friend who was 18...they were with her, and money was exchanged in plain view. Legal purchase. Those suburban dumbfucks wouldn't have been black marketing anything.

And waiting periods save lives in domestic violence situations

The deadliest school shooting in US history was done with two handguns.

In any event, I'm not saying those things can't be helpful. I've said many times before, they can. I'm all for them. And who knows, maybe Parkland could have been avoided. But in terms of getting anywhere near solving the problem of gun violence, including mass shootings? No, I don't believe the data bears that out. As long as people have access to firearms, these things are going to occur.

well yes but it's not like most americans own a gun or two and you'd have to scour the country from top to bottom. the majority of the guns in america are owned by only 3% of the population. it's those people that hoard guns that you'll have to go after but again, it's only 3% of americans and undoubtedly the federal government knows where most of these people are. and it's not like they'll all be unreasonable and start shooting at federal agents (although some will of course), many will comply and hand over their guns if it came down to it. surely there would also be some sort of buyback program where i'm sure a great many americans would also willingly hand in guns they don't want or use anymore for cash.

some people would resist, for sure and there would definitely be blood but i don't think it would be the decades-long battle you're predicting here. and also, getting 100% of them is a pipe dream anyways. just the reduction in the number of guns on the streets from people who would willingly comply and hand in what they have would dramatically reduce gun violence.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...half-of-americas-guns/?utm_term=.dd073d088a65

I don't find a lot to disagree with in general here.

I'll just add that this is all sort of my point (we've discussed these WaPo figures here before). 3% of the people own roughly half the handguns, and the other half is owned by between 19-22% (depending on which study you believe). So all the guns are owned by roughly a quarter of the population. That means most of those people like and care about owning their guns quite a bit. I'm not suggesting there would be a civil war, or anything so outlandish, but there would be blood, and it would cause a major cultural upheaval that would tear the country apart. The reason the NRA is so powerful and successful is not that they "buy" politicians...in terms of campaign contributions they're a bit player...it's the fact that they've done such an effective job nurturing and expanding the gun culture in the US. It's their millions of dues paying members, who are among the nation's most motivated voters, along with millions of other sympathisers, that make them so powerful.

The other thing is, yes, getting all the legal guns will save a lot of lives. But I don't think the Government could even contemplate asking responsible, law abiding citizens to give up their legal weapons until that Government is able to demonstrate that they'd confiscated a significant number of the illegal weapons. That's another thing I'm convinced would cause a major upheaval.

So yeah, I think all of this could take decades by the time you got rid of most of the hundreds of millions of guns.

Thanks for the thoughtful response, and the link!

 

[Wide Awake n AZ]

The deadliest school shooting in US history was done with two handguns.

No risk control has 100% effectiveness.

But to say "we can't fix it all, so we do nothing" is never the way to accomplish anything. The smallest improvement is improvement, and if you aren't infringing upon constitutional rights, you have to try. Because the AR ownership is a want that, apparently, they way we are trending, isn't a want the majority of the nation is willing to continue to tolerate at the level of inherent risk. It is political. People who try to jam on these kids for making the shooting "political" crack me up...yeah, they are. That is how laws get passed. The political process. They didn't ask for this pulpit. They didn't bait it to happen. This is righteous politicking.

And so much gets lost in the "school shooting" categorization of this movement. It has been driven by students (and it really is...my daughter is a local organizer and she was on a conference call with nothing but teens last night, and the organizing and funding arm for our local march was largely teen driven), and their visceral reaction at both the shootings and the threats that impact their lives through lockdowns and general terror (my daughter's school had an arrest made for a plot where guns and bomb making material were discovered) are driving their reaction.

But the laws being requested aren't just about school shootings. Waiting periods are more about domestic violence, the guy who doesn't have a gun who is pissed off and wants to end his partner's life (or her). Background checks are about making it as hard as possible for those who shouldn't have guns to have them.

It's like parenting, in some ways, but this is a democratic/representative government effort. But in using a parenting analogy, I am not talking about nanny state. I am talking about knowing your kid is likely to do some things against your rules, maybe illegal things, but making it as hard as possible for them to do so. Watching your liquor. If you are on pills that might be fun for teens, count those fuckers. Smell breath at the door after a night out. For God's sake, look in their drawers and closet occasionally...if they have a cache of guns, call someone. You make it hard for them to do something illegal, understanding they might do so anyhow.

Make it hard for the pissed off person who just got in an argument with their partner or saw them cheating to go buy a gun and execute everyone involved. If they are a felon, make them go black market. Maybe they cool off before they make it happen. Va Tech happened, but Tucson wasn't worse because the kid only had a lower capacity gun and got tackled on reload.

Of course, he went to a Walmart to buy ammo and the first one had a clerk that felt Loughner was acting "unusual" and refused him. He went to another, and with no way for the first clerk to get the word out, he bought the ammo that killed 6, including a 9 year old, wounded 13 more, including Rep. Giffords, who was no longer able to hold her position due to the damage suffered in the shooting.

When Loughner went to reload his Glock, he dropped the magazine. A bystander grabbed the clip, and someone went WWE and hit him with a folding chair. Then a 74-year old former Army Colonel, who had been shot, tackled him. If that bullet had been from a high power rifle, he wouldn't have been able to.

If his clip had been limited to 10 or 12 rather than the 33 in the Glock that he legally bought, the damage would have been, well...lessened.

Those are the situations gun control looks to mitigate. Those high profile ones, and the hundreds of "get a gun and shoot someone because I am mad" domestic violence deaths that are preventable.

You cannot eliminate them. But you cannot, if it is in the heart of the people, stop short of trying.