Reply With Quote
They've been pushing legislation like this all along.
Let's see if the Republican governor tries to push quick legislation.
It's hilarious that they keep losing their over it.
You can totally spare their mental health if you want by calling them "assault-style weapons" but it's more fun to watch them meltdown when literally everyone knows what's being discussed.
They've been pushing legislation like this all along.
Let's see if the Republican governor tries to push quick legislation.
lol. DMC = Defending Muh Criminals
would rather lay carpet on the entire planet-
instead of buying a comfortable pair of shoes
What's a good percentage to remove the word "only" in your post?
The bullet proof vest was a strawman from ElNono. Not surprised you went right after it
I never suggested that in my list. However given the option between that vs what happened, I'd choose any protection over none.
Words matter now.
Sounds like your tact. You want to wait for blanket legislation instead of hardening these soft targets.
Nerds is too genus term. They’re gun cultists and 2A cultists. Completely captured cultists.
1. Where did you get the number? Its interesting and I dont doubt it, its just that I have also looked up some stuff and on a deeper dive we dont keep good numbers on this, at all. But it seems reasonable.
2. The other 97% are then in a ton of categories as well probably. I bet the majority are of the type that involves ongoing criminal activity drug stuff. And this is where the method and the targets of these guns is important to the general public.
3. There is a clear difference where "dead is dead", is ethically very different to the public. Gun wielding drug dealers killing each other is NOT the same as a kid acquiring an AR in a rage who kills a load of totally innocent CHILDREN or other mixed populations of ages in crowded spots. It not a dead is dead by gun event to most people in the US. If we could lower that supposed 3%, THAT IS PROGRESS.
4. Part of the rage over this supposed 3% is also is the sheer numbers killed very quickly in one event, not just that they are innocent. This clearly involves using a machine that has these capabilities and is relatively easy to get a hold of. Something that will do the job of killing a fairly large number of people quickly. This, imo, is why the excessively extended term, GUN CONTROL, is used as it implies more than just rules concerning the requisite killing machine(s). This term scares non caring gunowners, where it seems that people who own guns and use them safely, understand the term. These guys open carrying into a dog park are often vilified by concerned gunowners. There are also various conversations among the gunowners I know about the ability to put an unnecessary number of bullets into a clip of excessive carrying capacity in their opinion.
5. It seems these large killing events involve certain types of machines. So why not look into how these particular machines allow these types of infrequent disasters, instead of, "its just crazy people"?
6. The type of offender is also important to identify. Yes, the guy in Las Vegas probably escapes almost all restrictions that might be proposed. It is a bit more difficult to do the deed, but he is bright and evil and will get the job done eventually. But the most violent offenders in almost any country, young males 15-25, dont think like this for the most part. And if they carryout all the detailed planning required and are really smart and expertly playrole it all out before the actual event, its tough to stop.
7. So its not just numbers of dead 3%. Its not an argument amongst "bad guys" in Chicago. Its innocent kids and other people being taken out in large numbers quickly. imo the general public feels this way. So its to avoid specific types of events that kill totally innocent people; Ethically bizarre or not.
But we cant lower these numbers at all?, its impossible because... crazy. I disagree.
Or, more health care that is clearly NOT available nor really cared about by gun nerds when this blows over.
8. The NRA clearly employs the slippery slope argument AND, caters to members who wont use these killing machines in this killing spree manner but want it easily available for the gun nerds that dont give a , they just want the toy. And they can get their toy with more restrictions, but paranoia of "taking my guns" creeps in.
9. There are also people in the gun control category who dont like the idea that even a single gun in a household. The readily available weapon during an alcoholic infused depressive state allows people (males mostly) to get rid of themselves easy on a whim, along with the numerous accidents that clearly occur. IMO, this is a different category of problem.
10. I have no idea why I numbered the above.
tldr incoming... that ok.
It takes more than soft targetS. Plural emphasized.
It takes the right machine(s) to do the job
$1,000,000+ for every public k-12 school would require blanket legislation.
And would just bunch kids outside to die there.
I used the plural form. You could have done the job with a kitchen knife. Once he locks himself inside that room, who's going to stop him? Certainly not the Uvalde police. The left cannot prevent people from getting guns. They never have. The right doesn't want to. Schools, especially these grades, have to be secure. The piggy with the brick house survived the big bad wolf. He didn't lobby congress to defang and declaw the wolf.
Teachers need guns?
So you have over 200 teachers in large high schools with the perfect age group of males that can be troubled.
Just great; the gun is NOW available at school. In large numbers. And I guess the kids wont discuss it in large groups.
"Damn, if Mrs. Crutchfield has access to a gun, how do we stop her from using it?"
Or something more sinister.
If anyone remembers HS, kids can be quite creative at figuring out complex problems when they work in groups and get to choose the problem to solve.
Where is the gun and how...
And the quiet kid who hates them all taking notes... wonderful. Group project for a disturbed individual, Yes!
The formula probably does not go as stated above. But ways this can go wrong... jesus...
This is actually a good writeup. As you said, these are different issues and the goal of each action needs to be clearly laid out.
Opinion
I’m from Uvalde.
I’m not surprised this happened.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...m-poverty-guns
I wouldn't arm teachers. Creating a barrier and hardening the entries plus providing a true safe space for classrooms to retreat to (or simply the room itself serves in that capacity) is more feasible. In the moment anything seems better than the alternative.
Yeah Id like to see you kill 19 kids and two teachers without anyone running about and putting up a fight.
They lie prone for you to select just the right artery, just like a neat little surgery.
And no gun shots to make the room next door thunker down, just a lot of thumping around and screaming, no one would investigate and even try to enter it?
why did the perp use a gun then? Its much easier to get in with a hidden knife
Its amazing that other kids that have done these deeds dont use knifes? Wow... its that easy.
And there are plenty of knife attacks in GB... But the mass killings of kids in school???
gtfoh grumps your arguments sucks.
NO, a knife would be much, much more difficult.
Bring all the kids and the teachers in sedated on gurneys for processing... just stop.
Fine.
Its been suggested by a number of Texas legislators that have more power in school rules than you do.
DMC needs to start a Bunkers for Band Practice bond initiative.
Those kids are just marching around in circles in open fields!
Fences are not enough!
You can't stop people from buying mortars!
Someone had no idea that guns make very different noises than trying to slash kids and teachers running about with a knife.
And a lot more...
These are small kids. They aren't going to assemble like an autobot.
It couldn't have been any easier to get in. He just walked in through unlocked doors. He didn't need to hide anything.
He used a gun because he thought it was cool, he wanted to shoot people. Had he wanted to burn people alive or kill them via explosion or by running over them, he could have done so. People have done all of these things. The key is to keep unauthorized people out of the school. That doesn't solve the issue of students being the shooters, but it does protect the little ones in elementary schools.
You should grow up some. You like yourself more than anyone else likes you.
Again, name your goal and solve that issue. You're not going to solve all gun related murders with legislation. There's no reason you cannot do both legislation and fortification of the schools.
None of us have any power in these things, but you just puked that up like someone here suggested it, without a reference.
Old shaky hands still in pursuit
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
