Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2018 19:04:02 GMT -5
Devil's advocate... what about a semi-auto shotgun, a semi auto .22 rifle, or even a double action revolver? Do you think I couldn't go in to a school and use a pump shotgun, lever action rifles and double action revolvers with speed loaders and not get at least 17? From a hunting standpoint, semi auto guns usually end up with less kills compared to bolt/lever/pump actions. The reason is people get excited and dump their magazines quickly without any accuracy. When you have to reset your mind for a split second after each shot, you get some clarity that you don't get when using semi auto. If we are going to pass new laws and make a big deal about something, we need to be sure that the problem is the problem and the solution is actually a solution. What happens if we ban semi auto rifles and big magazines, and then there is a school shooting done with more conventional guns and the shooter get 25 kids? You seriously argued a point I didn't make. I'm not for banning any guns. Remember, I was the one that disagreed with you and said bump stocks should still be legal despite the Vegas shooting. But you are saying semi auto AR types are the problem by saying they specifically need an extended age requirement. My point is they might be the tool of choice, but they are not the only way to get the job done. If you want to fix the problem you first have to identify it... and the simplicity of saying AR rifles are the problem is missing the point by a mile
|
|
|
Post by slaytan on Feb 19, 2018 19:13:10 GMT -5
Arming hapless teachers is not a good answer. The kids would steal the guns. ALLOWING teachers -and security guards- hell, janitors to be armed if they want to is the best and only answer So all the other developed countries on earth that don't have regular school massacres, is that what they do to prevent them? Armed teachers and janitors? If that's the only answer, that must be what everybody else did, right? Snark snark. So they don’t have school shootings in Brazil. Just kidnappings, carjackings, and home invasions. The truth is that there is no good answer. We can’t put the disease back in the vial. Reagan dropped the ball by dismantling the old insane asylum system... sort of. Insane asylums were used by governments to jail political opposition, including in the USA in Reagan’s lifetime. So that was obviously his thinking, and it was sound. The FBI and even local cops dropped the ball. But at the same time, cops and FBI are overwhelmed. Perhaps their resources were employed in preventing 10 other would-be shooters and Cruz slipped through. And then it turns out that the football coach who died is a CCW permit holder and was working not as a teacher but a security guard. A security guard... barred from carrying a gun on school grounds. So it’s like that lifelock commercial where the bank is getting robbed and the guards say “I’m not actually a security guard, I’m a security monitor.” This commercial was funny because of how ludicrous it would be to have guards who were not prepared to meet a threat. In real life it wasn’t as funny. Armed, responsible adults on campus -or at fucking least the possibility of such so as not to fucking advertise easy prey to every sicko- is far and away the best of all bad choices. The rest are so stupid it’s immoral, as they depend entirely on the government having magical, godlike powers. Governments don’t get magical powers. They get ugly, stupid powers
|
|
|
Post by andrewk1988 on Feb 19, 2018 19:20:07 GMT -5
You seriously argued a point I didn't make. I'm not for banning any guns. Remember, I was the one that disagreed with you and said bump stocks should still be legal despite the Vegas shooting. But you are saying semi auto AR types are the problem by saying they specifically need an extended age requirement. My point is they might be the tool of choice, but they are not the only way to get the job done. If you want to fix the problem you first have to identify it... and the simplicity of saying AR rifles are the problem is missing the point by a mile Well I don't know why you're going after him with that argument. That was my argument. And you tried to debunk it by saying "What about shotguns and .22s?" Well if they're semi auto, gonna have to wait to buy them. They still make plenty of great pump shotguns (that's all I have) and bolt action rifles that are much better for hunting anyway. Gonna have to just suck it up and wait a few more years to upgrade to the semi auto. I don't see what the problem is, beyond giving the government more power. But if you're willing to give up that power, like Tony mentioned, to alcohol and cigarettes, and you've already given up the power of having to register guns, what's the harm in trying an age restriction and see if it works.
|
|
|
Post by adamg01 on Feb 19, 2018 19:30:17 GMT -5
I wouldn’t have a problem with raising the age to 21 on semi autos with military origins. Going after 4 round semi auto hunting rifles and .22’s would be excessive and stupid. I think something like this within reason would be something that has a chance.
AR’s Ak’s Scar’s Fal’s Etc..
Do I think it would make a significant difference? No
|
|
|
Post by Comrade Question on Feb 19, 2018 19:59:28 GMT -5
So all the other developed countries on earth that don't have regular school massacres, is that what they do to prevent them? Armed teachers and janitors? If that's the only answer, that must be what everybody else did, right? Snark snark. So they don’t have school shootings in Brazil. Just kidnappings, carjackings, and home invasions. I specified developed countries for a reason, so why bring up Brazil?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2018 20:47:51 GMT -5
You seriously argued a point I didn't make. I'm not for banning any guns. Remember, I was the one that disagreed with you and said bump stocks should still be legal despite the Vegas shooting. But you are saying semi auto AR types are the problem by saying they specifically need an extended age requirement. My point is they might be the tool of choice, but they are not the only way to get the job done. If you want to fix the problem you first have to identify it... and the simplicity of saying AR rifles are the problem is missing the point by a mile That wasn't my argument at all. I was agreeing with the age of 21. I would assume it would be all guns, not specific guns. They can have a shotgun or an AR if there parents feel they are responsible enough for it, just as they do now.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2018 21:13:04 GMT -5
But you are saying semi auto AR types are the problem by saying they specifically need an extended age requirement. My point is they might be the tool of choice, but they are not the only way to get the job done. If you want to fix the problem you first have to identify it... and the simplicity of saying AR rifles are the problem is missing the point by a mile Well I don't know why you're going after him with that argument. That was my argument. And you tried to debunk it by saying "What about shotguns and .22s?" Well if they're semi auto, gonna have to wait to buy them. They still make plenty of great pump shotguns (that's all I have) and bolt action rifles that are much better for hunting anyway. Gonna have to just suck it up and wait a few more years to upgrade to the semi auto. I don't see what the problem is, beyond giving the government more power. But if you're willing to give up that power, like Tony mentioned, to alcohol and cigarettes, and you've already given up the power of having to register guns, what's the harm in trying an age restriction and see if it works. There is no harm in forcing people to wait until 25 to buy a semi-auto weapon... unless of course they can still kill a bunch of people with pump, lever or double actions. I am not necessarily disagreeing with you... but it is very hard to change any gun laws in this country, and if your choice is going to be to get rid of semi auto until you are 25 years old, I would question you understanding what can be accomplished by a pos with a non semi gun. If I was going to try to kill a bunch of high school kids I would start with 2 tube extension pump shotgun that can hold 12 shells of 00 buck (one on a sling and one in my hands). I would pump that in to a crowd of people at close range. 24 shells x 9 bb's = 216 lethal bullets into a crowd in about 30 seconds. Assuming you can't carry a third long gun, I would then switch to pistol's which would be .357 or .44 (something than can penetrate doors/walls and also go through body armor. You could have speed loaders across your waist and probably get off better shots and surely more lethal shots than 9mm or .40's could. I think an AR style weapon is an effective weapon for self defense and also killing a bunch of people, but for pure numbers in a crowd the pump shotgun would be hands down the better choice.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2018 21:14:17 GMT -5
But you are saying semi auto AR types are the problem by saying they specifically need an extended age requirement. My point is they might be the tool of choice, but they are not the only way to get the job done. If you want to fix the problem you first have to identify it... and the simplicity of saying AR rifles are the problem is missing the point by a mile That wasn't my argument at all. I was agreeing with the age of 21. I would assume it would be all guns, not specific guns. They can have a shotgun or an AR if there parents feel they are responsible enough for it, just as they do now. Andrew's original post was 21 or 25+ years of age... so I was going off of the assumption that semi auto guns would be over and above more regulated than other guns.
|
|
|
Post by andrewk1988 on Feb 19, 2018 21:21:28 GMT -5
Well I don't know why you're going after him with that argument. That was my argument. And you tried to debunk it by saying "What about shotguns and .22s?" Well if they're semi auto, gonna have to wait to buy them. They still make plenty of great pump shotguns (that's all I have) and bolt action rifles that are much better for hunting anyway. Gonna have to just suck it up and wait a few more years to upgrade to the semi auto. I don't see what the problem is, beyond giving the government more power. But if you're willing to give up that power, like Tony mentioned, to alcohol and cigarettes, and you've already given up the power of having to register guns, what's the harm in trying an age restriction and see if it works. There is no harm in forcing people to wait until 25 to buy a semi-auto weapon... unless of course they can still kill a bunch of people with pump, lever or double actions. I am not necessarily disagreeing with you... but it is very hard to change any gun laws in this country, and if your choice is going to be to get rid of semi auto until you are 25 years old, I would question you understanding what can be accomplished by a pos with a non semi gun. If I was going to try to kill a bunch of high school kids I would start with 2 tube extension pump shotgun that can hold 12 shells of 00 buck (one on a sling and one in my hands). I would pump that in to a crowd of people at close range. 24 shells x 9 bb's = 216 lethal bullets into a crowd in about 30 seconds. Assuming you can't carry a third long gun, I would then switch to pistol's which would be .357 or .44 (something than can penetrate doors/walls and also go through body armor. You could have speed loaders across your waist and probably get off better shots and surely more lethal shots than 9mm or .40's could. I think an AR style weapon is an effective weapon for self defense and also killing a bunch of people, but for pure numbers in a crowd the pump shotgun would be hands down the better choice. Especially a shotgun in a shooting lane like a high school hallway. I get what you're saying and agree. That's why I keep a good old 870 as my personal defense in my bedroom. But the AR/semi auto has been the go to for these dumbasses. Start with that and see if it makes a dent. If I were writing the law, I'd put a 10 year expiration on it or something.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2018 22:12:25 GMT -5
I disagree. Shotgun vs AR 15 for mass killing is a no brainer. AR 15 is lighter, easier to aim easier to shoot, easier to reload, and easier to be ready to take a follow-up shot. Where as you would need multiple shots guns, I could take one AR with 10 extended mags with me across my belt and vest giving me. 551 rounds to shoot (if you buy 50 round mags).
A shotgun is putting someone down and possibly killing the person behind them but it isn't going to spread enough to do any massive damage outside of the initial tarket That spread isn't moving much at 20 to 30 yards which is probably where you will be shooting from. Why carry 2 guns when you only Need one and magazines. Much lighter as well.
There is a reason no trained schlubs choose the AR for their attacks. However, while I would prefer an AR, I could go with dual wielding 9 mm with 32 round sticks in them. Giving me 66 shots before my first reload and I could carry at least 6 additional rounds on each side of my. Waist for 12, 32 round magazines. That's 450ish shots before I would ever need to reload a mag. I know 45s and such are stronger but for sheer numbers of. People you would cripple with a 9...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2018 2:10:52 GMT -5
In something like this you are only going to have a very short window of time to get the shooting done before people are gone. No way you can come close to getting a couple hundred rounds of ar off having to reload. My scenario is say you walk in to a cafeteria or gymnasium and have a concentration of people that are tightly grouped together... the second the shooting starts it’s instant chaos, so time is the most important element. You shoot a dozen rounds of 00 buck into a crowd and you are going to stack people up quicker per shot than anything else.
Of course ar’s are extremely effective as well, but my point is that we are trying to figure out a way to stop large scale killings, and I am saying that eliminating ar’s does not achieve that.
|
|
|
Post by PatSox on Feb 20, 2018 10:21:39 GMT -5
To me it's not one or two things. It's a multitude that should be looked in to simultaneously
- Make AR's harder to obtain - Make the penalty for selling guns and ammo to the wrong people more severe - Make the penalty for not securing your legal weapon and having someone else take it more severe - States should do an evaluation of each schools security situation. Talk to the people who run them. See what changes are worth looking in to - People should be encouraged to monitor troubled kids more vigilantly, by alerting law enforcement - Schools should always get their parents more involved, when incidents occur - Make a mental health evaluation mandatory for anyone with multiple incidents, or on the verge of being expelled - Every school should have guidance counselors available and teachers should send anyone they suspect to be troubled to talk with them as often as need be - Laws that prevent any of the above from being done should be looked at and changed
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2018 12:15:20 GMT -5
In something like this you are only going to have a very short window of time to get the shooting done before people are gone. No way you can come close to getting a couple hundred rounds of ar off having to reload. My scenario is say you walk in to a cafeteria or gymnasium and have a concentration of people that are tightly grouped together... the second the shooting starts it’s instant chaos, so time is the most important element. You shoot a dozen rounds of 00 buck into a crowd and you are going to stack people up quicker per shot than anything else. Of course ar’s are extremely effective as well, but my point is that we are trying to figure out a way to stop large scale killings, and I am saying that eliminating ar’s does not achieve that. Completely agree except for one point. You are right with shot for shot the 00 buck is going to do more damage. However, I could unload 100 (or close to that) rounds of an AR in less than 2 minutes. Take a 40 or 50 round mag and double stack it. That is less than a trigger pull per second plus a reload in the middle that wouldnt take any real time. All that being said, your point still stands that limiting a certain type of gun still stands and you are 200% correct. You could do big damage with two 9 mm or even a fanny pack or two full of revolvers. There is no stopping it without strong deterrents outside of a sign....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2018 12:19:56 GMT -5
^That all relies on people following the rules, which, they don't. (I was replying to the cup, not you Floyd.)
This argument ALWAYS hinges on one's personal perspective regarding the power of government. Those who think the government threat of legal sanction (prison time) is an actual deterrent are proven wrong by the fact that more than 400 kids have been killed in more than 200 school shootings since Columbine.
Our reaction to that tragedy was to put police officers in just about every school in the country. It worked for a little while, 19 years ago. But it doesn't work any more.
The threat has grown, and the response to the threat should grow with it. Fuck laws. You come to my kid's school looking to shoot children, you die right when you walk in the door.
|
|
|
Post by MMAJim on Feb 20, 2018 12:20:55 GMT -5
To me it's not one or two things. It's a multitude that should be looked in to simultaneously - Make AR's harder to obtain - Make the penalty for selling guns and ammo to the wrong people more severe - Make the penalty for not securing your legal weapon and having someone else take it more severe - States should do an evaluation of each schools security situation. Talk to the people who run them. See what changes are worth looking in to - People should be encouraged to monitor troubled kids more vigilantly, by alerting law enforcement - Schools should always get their parents more involved, when incidents occur - Make a mental health evaluation mandatory for anyone with multiple incidents, or on the verge of being expelled - Every school should have guidance counselors available and teachers should send anyone they suspect to be troubled to talk with them as often as need be - Laws that prevent any of the above from being done should be looked at and changed These are not bad ideas. Defining "AR" and "AR-type" in your first point will be sticky. "Wrong people," in number two could be problematic. I don't think reasonable people would be against most of these, though people will have different definitions for those two items in particular. Regarding expulsion. Schools around here have policies in place "see St. Paull Schools" to make it harder to even suspend kids much less expel them (this is bc someone convinced the school that suspensions were racist, and no I'm not joking or exaggerating). In any case, teachers I talk to generally feel like they have little or no real recourse to discipline any behavior (including stopping bullying). We just had a post in here about Edina Public Schools and their mission of diversity and indoctrination of understanding what white privilege is. Any motion to restore Education, Security, Safety, and hell yes, even counselors/mental health/conflict resolution types to the top of the ladder at schools would be welcome. I just honestly think, at least here, you would meet a helluva a lot of very loud resistance (even if from a vast minority of parents) to things like schools singling out troubled kids, alerting law enforcement, mental health evaluations to students, and even requesting/requiring more parent interaction (not joking, parents would resist requests to be more involved). I know this has convo-derailment potential, but I just talked to a co-worker whose mother was a long time teacher. Huge issue for female teachers working with Somali families here in MN. Somali males, in many cases, do not recognize females as authority figures at all, students and parents alike. Some Somali parents would openly rebuke anything critical or even encouraging action from male students or parents. This is real world stuff, the stuff that it is no longer OK to talk about in a lot places today. Sorry for the sidebar, but in short, 100% agreement in straightening up some school priorities.
|
|
|
Post by ocmmafan on Feb 20, 2018 12:55:08 GMT -5
We have restorative justice and 9th place trophies to satisfy pussies and that is the biggest problem. Kids are not allowed to struggle and learn how to deal with the ups and downs of life when you have liberals in charge of curriculum. We need to revert to a more disciplined approach again in school AND let kids be fucking kids.
Liberals can keep beating this "mental health" bullshit but we are already the most overmedicated, overdiagnosed country in the world. More pills and telling more kids they are not responsible for themselves won't help and will only make things worse.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2018 14:30:43 GMT -5
To me it's not one or two things. It's a multitude that should be looked in to simultaneously - Make AR's harder to obtain - Make the penalty for selling guns and ammo to the wrong people more severe - Make the penalty for not securing your legal weapon and having someone else take it more severe - States should do an evaluation of each schools security situation. Talk to the people who run them. See what changes are worth looking in to - People should be encouraged to monitor troubled kids more vigilantly, by alerting law enforcement - Schools should always get their parents more involved, when incidents occur - Make a mental health evaluation mandatory for anyone with multiple incidents, or on the verge of being expelled - Every school should have guidance counselors available and teachers should send anyone they suspect to be troubled to talk with them as often as need be - Laws that prevent any of the above from being done should be looked at and changed I like this list, although is relies a lot on 2 things which I don't have faith in... 1) Parents are fucking worthless nowadays 2) Government is terribly inefficient and I don't want to trust them too much in policing danger and following through on any threats.
|
|
|
Post by PatSox on Feb 20, 2018 15:21:43 GMT -5
To me it's not one or two things. It's a multitude that should be looked in to simultaneously - Make AR's harder to obtain - Make the penalty for selling guns and ammo to the wrong people more severe - Make the penalty for not securing your legal weapon and having someone else take it more severe - States should do an evaluation of each schools security situation. Talk to the people who run them. See what changes are worth looking in to - People should be encouraged to monitor troubled kids more vigilantly, by alerting law enforcement - Schools should always get their parents more involved, when incidents occur - Make a mental health evaluation mandatory for anyone with multiple incidents, or on the verge of being expelled - Every school should have guidance counselors available and teachers should send anyone they suspect to be troubled to talk with them as often as need be - Laws that prevent any of the above from being done should be looked at and changed I like this list, although is relies a lot on 2 things which I don't have faith in... 1) Parents are fucking worthless nowadays 2) Government is terribly inefficient and I don't want to trust them too much in policing danger and following through on any threats. So that means they won't do a perfect job. So what, let them try to do better at least It might just prevent one or two or ten of these incidents to happen in the future. The tough part is we'll never know the ones that are prevented, because how can you know something that didn't happen? It still doesn't mean we shouldn't work at it
|
|
|
Post by PatSox on Feb 20, 2018 15:25:34 GMT -5
We have restorative justice and 9th place trophies to satisfy pussies and that is the biggest problem. Kids are not allowed to struggle and learn how to deal with the ups and downs of life when you have liberals in charge of curriculum. We need to revert to a more disciplined approach again in school AND let kids be fucking kids. Liberals can keep beating this "mental health" bullshit but we are already the most overmedicated, overdiagnosed country in the world. More pills and telling more kids they are not responsible for themselves won't help and will only make things worse. Mental health bullshit? I thought it was the conservatives pushing that, and the libs were on the gun law train? I'm not talking about giving them depressants and forgetting about them. I'm talking about observing them, speaking with them, and learning which ones need to be watched out for. Which ones may be capable of doing horrific shit. I'm more about figuring out which ones are fucked up and are capable of hurting/killing the ones that aren't
|
|
|
Post by MMAJim on Feb 20, 2018 15:28:47 GMT -5
^ A lot of our societal ills could be quelled by better parenting.
One of my wife's long-term goals is to get parenting education into curriculum at the High School and even middle school level. Meaning a more comprehensive education on the responsibilities of be a parent and being an adult. I know some schools go over some rudimentary things in a health class but this would be something more extensive. I almost guarantee that a major obstacle will be parents themselves. Who wants their kid coming home and telling them that they shouldn't actually lay on the couch smoking weed and playing video games or the Facebook Farm game all day/night.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2018 17:06:10 GMT -5
I like this list, although is relies a lot on 2 things which I don't have faith in... 1) Parents are fucking worthless nowadays 2) Government is terribly inefficient and I don't want to trust them too much in policing danger and following through on any threats. So that means they won't do a perfect job. So what, let them try to do better at least It might just prevent one or two or ten of these incidents to happen in the future. The tough part is we'll never know the ones that are prevented, because how can you know something that didn't happen? It still doesn't mean we shouldn't work at it I am all for it. I would also like to see the ability for local communities and parents to get together and fund their own solutions... like private security, private counselors, added physical barriers, and other measures that don’t have to deal with the red tape of government
|
|
|
Post by adamg01 on Feb 20, 2018 17:12:15 GMT -5
We have restorative justice and 9th place trophies to satisfy pussies and that is the biggest problem. Kids are not allowed to struggle and learn how to deal with the ups and downs of life when you have liberals in charge of curriculum. We need to revert to a more disciplined approach again in school AND let kids be fucking kids. Liberals can keep beating this "mental health" bullshit but we are already the most overmedicated, overdiagnosed country in the world. More pills and telling more kids they are not responsible for themselves won't help and will only make things worse. This guy gets it. ^
|
|
|
Post by andrewk1988 on Feb 20, 2018 17:31:02 GMT -5
Right yeah, it's definitely the liberals calling this guy mentally ill and trying to use mentally ill as an excuse for shootings, while simultaneously saying mental illness is bullshit.
You guys totally got it figured out.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2018 18:39:07 GMT -5
Anyone figure out a solution yet?
|
|
|
Post by Comrade Question on Feb 20, 2018 19:06:21 GMT -5
Anyone figure out a solution yet? How does this sound? What if Democrats suggest gun control, and Republicans blame mental health while simultaneously cutting funding for mental health treatment and make it even easier for the mentally ill (and anybody else) to get guns, and we have this exact same conversation in a few months after another dozen or two children get murdered? Good solution?
|
|
|
Post by ocmmafan on Feb 20, 2018 19:22:46 GMT -5
Anyone figure out a solution yet? How does this sound? What if Democrats suggest gun control, and Republicans blame mental health while simultaneously cutting funding for mental health treatment and make it even easier for the mentally ill (and anybody else) to get guns, and we have this exact same conversation in a few months after another dozen or two children get murdered? Good solution? You don't have kids and are terrified of guns, so who why should anyone give a fuck what you think? Because your incessant whining as you switch into another account makes your opinion more valid? How about you just come out and say you blame white, conservative men with jobs?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2018 19:22:52 GMT -5
I know the solution but nobody wants to hear it. This stuff is unavoidable and unfixable. We want freedoms and we want the ability to make our own decisions, with that comes pieces of shit who use our freedoms against us. We live amongst 350mm people, there are going to be bad seeds that slip through the cracks and hurt people. You can make all of the guns you want illegal and that will just empower the black market to charge more, but why wouldn’t a kid pay $4k for an ar that he wants to use to shoot up a school? He won’t need the money in prison or in hell.
|
|
|
Post by Comrade Question on Feb 20, 2018 19:37:21 GMT -5
I know the solution but nobody wants to hear it. This stuff is unavoidable and unfixable. We want freedoms and we want the ability to make our own decisions, with that comes pieces of shit who use our freedoms against us. We live amongst 350mm people, there are going to be bad seeds that slip through the cracks and hurt people. You can make all of the guns you want illegal and that will just empower the black market to charge more, but why wouldn’t a kid pay $4k for an ar that he wants to use to shoot up a school? He won’t need the money in prison or in hell. Is that really the only thing that distinguishes us from all the other developed countries (not talking about China, Brazil, or El Salvador) that don't have to deal with this shit regularly? Freedom?
|
|
|
Post by Comrade Question on Feb 20, 2018 19:38:37 GMT -5
How does this sound? What if Democrats suggest gun control, and Republicans blame mental health while simultaneously cutting funding for mental health treatment and make it even easier for the mentally ill (and anybody else) to get guns, and we have this exact same conversation in a few months after another dozen or two children get murdered? Good solution? You don't have kids and are terrified of guns, so who why should anyone give a fuck what you think? Because your incessant whining as you switch into another account makes your opinion more valid? How about you just come out and say you blame white, conservative men with jobs? Would it surprise you to know that you're wrong on all three points? What would be the point of using multiple accounts on an anonymous message board with a grand total of 13 member in the first place?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2018 20:08:39 GMT -5
Anyone figure out a solution yet? How does this sound? What if Democrats suggest gun control, and Republicans blame mental health while simultaneously cutting funding for mental health treatment and make it even easier for the mentally ill (and anybody else) to get guns, and we have this exact same conversation in a few months after another dozen or two children get murdered? Good solution? Or we could stick some armed guards at each school. Preferrably the guys and gals coming back from military duty. I'm no genius, but seems like the most practical way to go about things. Or, we could just type long winded blowhard messages to one another over it.
|
|