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

[Moonlit_Angel]

Yes, but nut jobs can get guns. So the question is, what can you do to prevent them from getting guns, and what do you do in the interim to keep schools safe until that day comes?

Try and look for other suggestions that don't sound like attempts to turn schools into prisons? We've tried the metal detector thing, there have been guards at some of the schools where these shootings happened (and at other mass shooting events as well), and so on. Those suggestions clearly aren't proving to be deterrents to shooters. There's got to be other ways to try and help keep students safe that don't require them having to go through all that stuff just to get into their own school. Maybe we could have some proper discussion of the warning signs to watch out for, we could focus on encouraging people to tell somebody if they see somebody exhibiting those warning signs and letting those who are in charge of doing something about dangerous people be able to get them the first time they make any sorts of threats or exhibit harassing behavior, instead of letting them build a history of disturbing behavior, maybe somebody could do something about kids who think it's cool to flash and brag about their gun collections online, etc.

I acknowledge those kinds of suggestions could and likely would come with their own issues, but they are aspects worth discussing as well, and at least it'd be a change from the usual, "Arm the teachers/put armed guards in schools/have metal detectors everywhere!" arguments we hear every time.

On a different note, Ted Cruz has chimed in with his thoughts:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2018/02/22/ted-cruz-simpsons/364747002/

During a discussion about gun rights at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference Thursday, Sen. Ted Cruz said, "The Democrats are the party of Lisa Simpson and Republicans are happily the party of Homer, Bart, Maggie and Marge."

Yep.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Soooo he just said the Democrats are the smart ones and the Republicans spend half their time at Moe's?

 

[Axver]

High on history my friend.

I don't regard that statement as particularly controversial. Brits think he's the #1 Briton anyway, BBC said so! (though that ranking was of dubious quality, as it had Princes Di at #3 above Darwin and Shakespeare).

Those lists are of dubious quality even when made by historians (I'd be tempted to rate Julius Vogel as the greatest person of all time, despite the fact that in my more sensible moments I'd concede that he isn't—probably), let alone when voted by the general public.

Churchill was a mediocre military man and politician who had rightly been consigned to the backbenches. That he managed to get back to the centre of British politics is remarkable, and he was indeed pretty quotable under adversity, but the guy couldn't even hold onto government at the end of the war - despite the attempt of WWII nostalgists to cast him as the greatest of "great men".

His legacy is of course complex, and he deserves some credit, but the cult of Churchill is just insane. Rankings of "great people" are a bit silly, but it's not hard to rattle off names of people with greater claims to praise.

 

[dabiggestu2fan]

I just don’t get how countries like Canada, uk, Australia etc can have it all figured out (how many mass shootings have these countries have in the last year?) yet a country like the USA can’t figure it out? The solution is simple! Have gun control laws that make sense. Also ban organizations like the NRA from donating campaign money to politicians that they “buy”. It is really not that hard! Other countries have proven time and time again that strict gun laws actually work. Some Americans really need to stop putting the love of guns before the safety of their children. Who the fuck needs an AR or military style weapon??? Ide like to believe that those that want these weapons are compensating for something!

 

[Vlad n U 2]

I'll likely have more to say later, but Churchill is the Jebediah Springfield of Western political history.

 

[corianderstem]

*insert joke about how embiggened Churchill was*

 

[Vlad n U 2]

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

The times, they are a changin'

https://thinkprogress.org/alamo-national-enterprise-dump-nra-35d326965744/

 

[corianderstem]

*bows cromulently*

 

[prbiker15]

The times, they are a changin'

https://thinkprogress.org/alamo-national-enterprise-dump-nra-35d326965744/

Didn’t even know these type of partnerships existed. Insane.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Neither did I. Talk about eye-opening.

Good on them for breaking ties, though. Hopefully more companies who are connected will follow suit.

 

[DaveC]

Didn’t even know these type of partnerships existed. Insane.

Neither did I. Talk about eye-opening.

i'm sure it's basically the same thing as buying a membership to AAA, you get a bunch of discounts at all kinds of retailers if you show your card. it's nothing new or unique to the NRA.

 

[mama cass]

i believe this generation of hard-right pro-gun dinosaurs are making a massive rod for their own backs right now, they can't stop the turning tide and i reckon they're terrified... young people are the future leaders - they may not have money, but they sure have the power

 

[Nick66]

Churchill was a mediocre military man and politician who had rightly been consigned to the backbenches. That he managed to get back to the centre of British politics is remarkable, and he was indeed pretty quotable under adversity, but the guy couldn't even hold onto government at the end of the war - despite the attempt of WWII nostalgists to cast him as the greatest of "great men".

His legacy is of course complex, and he deserves some credit, but the cult of Churchill is just insane. Rankings of "great people" are a bit silly, but it's not hard to rattle off names of people with greater claims to praise.

While the cult of Churchill is indeed a bit overblown, I do think his reputation as one of the greatest Britons is well deserved.

It's true he was a mediocre military man, and that his political career, before and after being PM, was unremarkable. He was also a drunk, a crank, unabashed imperialist and probably a white supremacist. And if you delete his years as PM, he'd be a figure with an interesting, adventurous, but otherwise unremarkable life.

But deleting the war years is a pretty big deletion. That's like saying if you delete the Civil War Lincoln was just an average lawyer. Saving Europe from fascism is a big fucking deal, and his leadership of Great Britian during those years was remarkable. There was no other politician on the scene who could have done what he did. Hitler occupies England and the war turns out very differently.

So yeah, even if all he did was save his country and help keep the world from plunging into a generation of darkness, that alone would secure his place in history.

 

[DaveC]

He was also a drunk, a crank, unabashed imperialist and probably a white supremacist.

yea, and i'm "probably" breathing today.

Saving Europe from fascism is a big fucking deal

TIL that a few eloquent speeches saved europe from fascism.

Hitler occupies England and the war turns out very differently.

sure, except for the simple fact that an invasion of britain during world war II was 100,000% impossible and never would or could have happened.

So yeah, even if all he did was save his country and help keep the world from plunging into a generation of darkness, that alone would secure his place in history.

oh that's right. it was churchill personally who did all that, not millions of airmen, sailors, soldiers and civilians from around the world.

 

[Nick66]

 

[DaveC]

(sigh)

you were just owned, and i gave you the facts to back it. all you're doing is spouting opinions about "greatest britons" and "saving the world". next thing you'll be telling me he personally flew a spitfire during the blitz.

so anytime you want to have that conversation about winston churchill, let me know sparky. i've probably forgotten more about your military history than you'll ever know.

 

[Nick66]

sure, except for the simple fact that an invasion of britain during world war II was 100,000% impossible and never would or could have happened.

Yeah. Because "100,000%" impossible is a fact!

oh that's right. it was churchill personally who did all that, not millions of airmen, sailors, soldiers and civilians from around the world.

This isn't even good rubbish. Surely you can't be this obtuse?

yea, and i'm "probably" breathing today.

Forget the breathing. Try thinking today.

"DaveC". LOL.

 

[DaveC]

Yeah. Because "100,000%" impossible is a fact!

i apologize for using numbers that were too large for you to handle.

but the point remains the same. the idea that the nazis could have successfully invaded, conquered, and occupied britain is fucking laughable. the fact you honestly presented it as a possibility confirms that you have zero clue of what you're on about.

This isn't even good rubbish. Surely you can't be this obtuse?

okay, you've made your point. i take it back. the guys fighting on the front lines and the people getting bombed in their homes weren't the important ones. it was the fat old racist drunk making speeches on the radio and flashing the V-for-victory sign with his fingers that defeated hitler.

"DaveC". LOL.

why the hell did you edit your post to add this in? am i supposed to feel insulted that you're apparently laughing at my very common name or something?

 

[Nick66]

but the point remains the same. the idea that the nazis could have successfully invaded, conquered, and occupied britain is fucking laughable.

Absolutely. Thank God for Churchill. Glad we agree!

Poor DaveC.

What did Churchill ever do to you give you such a case of the sads?

 

[DaveC]

i know that you're not actually a stupid person, so you'll have to forgive my confusion as to why you insist on acting like one.

 

[Iggy Fizz]

It's remarkable how people are the same just about everywhere - no one ever wants to give credit or assign positive attributes to anyone they deem 'not on their side'. Dems can never credit Reagan, Repubs the same with Clinton (Bill not Shill).

It is sad, but it is what it is.

 

[Nick66]

It's remarkable how people are the same just about everywhere - no one ever wants to give credit or assign positive attributes to anyone they deem 'not on their side'. Dems can never credit Reagan, Repubs the same with Clinton (Bill not Shill).

It is sad, but it is what it is.

I think the three greatest US Presidents of the 20th century were TR, FDR & Reagan. You don't get three people more different in personality and ideology than that. I also think Bill Clinton was a pretty good President (though obviously not transformative in the way that those three were).

Churchill hatred is in vogue because, let's face it, he was a naked imperialist and his views on race weren't exactly progressive.

It should be possible for people to acknowledge that and still recognise the absolutely crucial role he played in rallying a defiant Britain against Hitler's aerial onslaught (no DaveC, I'm not saying Hitler flew the planes himself). To say nothing of Dunkirk. You simply can't dismiss the importance of Churchill's leadership in the early days, before the Americans showed up, in ultimately winning the war. A war which no doubt would have unfolded differently had Britain been appeasing rather than defiant towards Hitler.

Hitler didn't want war with Britain, and he didn't want to invade initially. He just wanted them to roll over, and when they didn't, he unleashed hell on the island (and made plans to invade, Operation Sea Lion). As for it being "100,00% impossible" for Hitler (no, not him personally) to occupy Britain...well, certainly there were logistical challenges, it's true that as things stood in the air war, such an invasion had little chance of success. But that's the point....all of that was because, in large part, Britain had a leader that mobilised his country. Who in parliament was going to do that? Halifax? LOL. And in any event, I'm certain there weren't many people who thought it was "100,000% impossible" that Hitler (not him personally, his army) would or could overrun Europe.

Churchill certainly didn't underestimate Hitler's threat. Had Hitler not had to worry about Britain, who knows what he could have done. To dismiss Churchill's leadership is to dismiss the role of leadership and personality in studying how historical events unfold. Dismissing Churchill's role in saving Britain as nothing but slogans and V symbols , or that he defeated fascism with simply eloquent speeches is like saying Hitler conquered Europe with nothing but speeches at Nuremberg. It's absurd. Leaders matter.

Anyway, this thread has been derailed enough. Back to common sense gun control.

 

[Iggy Fizz]

Wait, Hitler had an army?

 

[LuckyNumber7]

 

[PhilsFan]

probably a white supremacist.

Let's ask the people of southern Asia to weigh in on that one.

 

[Wide Awake n AZ]

(sigh)

so anytime you want to have that conversation about winston churchill, let me know sparky. i've probably forgotten more about your military history than you'll ever know.

At least I was claiming that about my own history/political system/one time job

 

[Irvine511]

 

[PhilsFan]

Trump cannot even handle the sight of blood, and has openly talked about this fact.

 

[PhilsFan]

Meanwhile, Alex Jones is begging David Hogg for an interview because YouTube deactivated his account for a second time, and Jones thinks it's because Hogg pointed out that he's called Sandy Hook a false flag.