Ongoing US Mass Shooting Thread 2

[Acey]

I don't see a how background check would have changed this outcome if the kid had no priors or documented history of mental illness. It just delays the inevitable.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by midniteowl

That 5 Dems that flipped sides should be called out and shamed.



This is both maddening and saddening.

Not to defend anyone but -

It had 54 votes for and 46 against - even with the 5 democrats it would have been 59 to 41 and not passed the filibuster. The Democrats who voted against it were from Alaska, Montana, North Dakota and Arkansas - if the thing isn't going to pass - they aren't going to vote for it and take the political hit for no reason.

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by midniteowl

That 5 Dems that flipped sides should be called out and shamed.



This is both maddening and saddening.

Absolutely agree with you there...

some were from more conservative states, so concern with their position over rode their common sense - some would argue that their constituents would have wanted to to vote this way...

I think 3 of those senators lost their seats the next time around. Not sure how many GOP senators got booted for voting for legislation.

the sad thing, is that was just a toothless bill to get background checks for private sales at gun shows (IIRC)... It wasn't 'new' legislation - it was closing a loophole: background checks are required if purchasing guns from a dealer, but not in a gun show or from a private dealer....

One can see how broken the system is...Not a lot of "portraits in courage" especially on the right. or left

[PeteMoss]

I hadn't seen this before...but how wild is this

https://twitter.com/user/status/1530208114171166722

[Since1984]

Originally Posted by Acey

I don't see a how background check would have changed this outcome if the kid had no priors or documented history of mental illness. It just delays the inevitable.

Or! here me out on this but it could also delay long enough for someone close to the potential shooter to notice red flags and talk with them? Perhaps opening up the possibility that they could be referred to professionals for help.

I would assume background checks would require some kind of personal referral, so in cases where the person is under the legal age in that particular location, that referral could be made mandatory to be a close family member who would have some knowledge on the mental state of the applicant.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

I hadn't seen this before...but how wild is this

https://twitter.com/user/status/1530208114171166722

There are still nudie mags out there?!

[Just a guy]

Originally Posted by Manhattanboy

Nothing will change until some ####### gets past security and guns down 25 or more Republican senators.

So gun violence is good if it gets the returns that you want! Got it. You do remember the guy shooting up the republican baseball team right?

Not a gun guy, but saying that we just need to shoot the right guys is just wrong!

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by Acey

I don't see a how background check would have changed this outcome if the kid had no priors or documented history of mental illness. It just delays the inevitable.

No, but other precautions such as references and required waiting period might have prevented this.

[mikephoen]

Originally Posted by Just a guy

So gun violence is good if it gets the returns that you want! Got it. You do remember the guy shooting up the republican baseball team right?

Not a gun guy, but saying that we just need to shoot the right guys is just wrong!

No, he is correct. If you're going to use violence to enact change, you have to direct it at the correct targets. Killing random kids or random republicans won't do anything. Killing Republican Senators, Republican leaning judges, or Republican political donators at least has a chance at success. You have to direct the violence at the people with power, if change through violence is your plan.

[Just a guy]

Originally Posted by mikephoen

No, he is correct. If you're going to use violence to enact change, you have to direct it at the correct targets. Killing random kids or random republicans won't do anything. Killing Republican Senators, Republican leaning judges, or Republican political donators at least has a chance at success. You have to direct the violence at the people with power, if change through violence is your plan.

Got it! Gun violence is good if it works for you!

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by mikephoen

Killing Republican Senators, Republican leaning judges, or Republican political donators at least has a chance at success. You have to direct the violence at the people with power, if change through violence is your plan.

Why stop there? Maybe murdering the children and grandchildren of Republican politicians, donors, and judges is the way to go. That’ll get their attention.

[mikephoen]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Why stop there? Maybe murdering the children and grandchildren of Republican politicians, donors, and judges is the way to go. That’ll get their attention.

Not a bad idea, if change through violence is your plan.

Obviously, if you want to use non violent methods, that won't work. But if you're committed to change through violence, then it's worth a try.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Why stop there? Maybe murdering the children and grandchildren of Republican politicians, donors, and judges is the way to go. That’ll get their attention.

You really read just a guy's purposely obtuse post and thought 'this is the guy I want to support in the discussion'?

[Just a guy]

Originally Posted by mikephoen

Not a bad idea, if change through violence is your plan.

Obviously, if you want to use non violent methods, that won't work. But if you're committed to change through violence, then it's worth a try.

This just says sooooo much about you. My wish is that after time you will go back and reread your words and regret ever having stated them.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by oldschoolcalgary

the sad thing, is that was just a toothless bill to get background checks for private sales at gun shows (IIRC)... It wasn't 'new' legislation - it was closing a loophole: background checks are required if purchasing guns from a dealer, but not in a gun show or from a private dealer....

I think you're being a bit unfair in your characterization of the bill - closing loopholes is a big deal. Legislation with loopholes is what's toothless. Closing them gives it teeth.

[Just a guy]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

You really read just a guy's purposely obtuse post and thought 'this is the guy I want to support in the discussion'?

Two things, you are assuming he is being purposely obtuse and second it is clear to me Cliff was being sarcastic. I may be wrong, but don't think so.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Just a guy

This just says sooooo much about you. My wish is that after time you will go back and reread your words and regret ever having stated them.

Thank goodness you've arrived to discuss the real problems - hyperbolic CP posts.

[Just a guy]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Thank goodness you've arrived to discuss the real problems - hyperbolic CP posts.

I am not allowed to have opinions?

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Just a guy

I am not allowed to have opinions?

I'm not allowed to call your opinions terrible?

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Just a guy

This just says sooooo much about you. My wish is that after time you will go back and reread your words and regret ever having stated them.

Dude, seriously, take a reading comprehension course. You’ll be much happier in life and understand what people are trying to say