F'dup Chapters in American History(The Trump Years) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Part 29

[Handsome Rob]

Oh and before this string of mass shootings, I bet people thought churches, schools and concerts were safe, mass shootings can happen anywhere.

Children in school have to do drills to prepare for mass shootings and the GOP wants to turn schools into forts. How are these kids free? How is a gun nut's desire to own a AR-15 more important then these kids?

1. Schools, churches, and concerts are largely safe. But, yes, mass shootings can happen anywhere . . . including "gun free zones."

2. Kids also do tornado drills, fire drills, etc. Even with a total gun ban, it would be foolish not to have a drill or a plan in place. You're not going to uninvent or eliminate firearms. We had a meeting at church (because I'm involved with the Elementary Education program there) headed by the FBI guy I mentioned earlier where we learned about the safety procedures and protocols. I've got a plan in place for what to do if I hear gunshots outside the classroom--everything from securing the door to where to move the kids to in the room and what we'll have them do in the event someone tries to get in the room. I've done some serious thinking on this, especially as it will be on me to stop the shooter should he make it into our classroom . . . and yet I still don't "live in fear."

3. The Thousand Oaks shooter utilized a Glock handgun, not an AR-15 . . . so people not being allowed to own AR-15s totally would have made a difference there, right?

 

[Silvermoon]

I think i just threw up in my mouth a little

 

[Sithborg]

Honestly, we aren't going to get anywhere on gun laws until the generation that grew up with active shooter drills comes of age. And, I think they will be quite a loud voice.

 

[Zarex]

Unless you have actually been involved in an incident or live in a neighborhood or a community with a spike in gun violence (like specific neighborhoods in Chicago), you're being irrational if you "live in fear of gun violence all the time." Your odds of being a victim of gun violence, much less a victim in a mass shooting, are quite small. But hey, if someone lives in fear of being hit by a drunk (or high) driver, that justifies further restricting the rights of individuals to drink alcohol or smoke pot, right? Because "live in fear," right?

But, "live in fear" is probably only a justification to restrict or remove certain rights that you coincidentally don't like people having . . .

Personally, I'm not living in fear of death by gun violence. I fully understand that my love of high cholesterol food is far more likely to do me in than a shotgun blast to the noggin. I'm also highly unlikely to die in a California wildfire as I live on the opposite coast. Nor am I going to die from cervical cancer, given I don't have a uterus.

But just because I'm (probably) not directly impacted doesn't mean we shouldn't address the problem. And mass shootings are a problem, no? As the Onion posts all too often these days, 'No Way To Prevent This', Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens. Most of us get that this headline is a joke. Other countries don't have this problem. Shouldn't we at least try to figure out what they are doing right?

I'm not a gun guy, so I don't know what the answer is - More investment in mental health? State licensing and registration for guns in a manner similar to automobiles? Tax and restriction of ammo sales (No 2nd Amendment concerns with this one!) But I do know the answer is not "more guns". Or ignoring the issue altogether.

 

[The Overlord]

1. Schools, churches, and concerts are largely safe. But, yes, mass shootings can happen anywhere . . . including "gun free zones."

2. Kids also do tornado drills, fire drills, etc. Even with a total gun ban, it would be foolish not to have a drill or a plan in place. You're not going to uninvent or eliminate firearms. We had a meeting at church (because I'm involved with the Elementary Education program there) headed by the FBI guy I mentioned earlier where we learned about the safety procedures and protocols. I've got a plan in place for what to do if I hear gunshots outside the classroom--everything from securing the door to where to move the kids to in the room and what we'll have them do in the event someone tries to get in the room. I've done some serious thinking on this, especially as it will be on me to stop the shooter should he make it into our classroom . . . and yet I still don't "live in fear."

3. The Thousand Oaks shooter utilized a Glock handgun, not an AR-15 . . . so people not being allowed to own AR-15s totally would have made a difference there, right?

Okay, answer me this, if gun control laws make no difference why is far less gun violence in other first world democracies?

Also why does the gun rights movement never seem to go to bat for guys like Philando Castile? For the leaders of the gun rights movement this right "need not apply" to the people targetted by the militarized police. The second amendment did not make Philando Castile safe, if he was not a gun owner he would still be alive.

 

[Handsome Rob]

Okay, answer me this, if gun control laws make no difference why is far less gun violence in other first world democracies?

Also why does the gun rights movement never seem to go to bat for guys like Philando Castile? For the leaders of the gun rights movement this right "need not apply" to the people targetted by the militarized police. The second amendment did not make Philando Castile safe, if he was not a gun owner he would still be alive.

I never said that gun control laws "make no difference."

You'll have to ask "the gun rights movement" about Castile, but "what if" scenarios involving individuals don't make a good case for determining the rights of others. If my mom hadn't been able to get my grandfather's rifle to scare off a man trying to get into the house when she was home alone as a teenager, she might not be alive today.

So, how do you feel about me using that story in response to people who want to ban guns, much less further restrict them? That actually happened to her, by the way.

 

[The Overlord]

I never said that gun control laws "make no difference."

You'll have to ask "the gun rights movement" about Castile, but "what if" scenarios involving individuals don't make a good case for determining the rights of others. If my mom hadn't been able to get my grandfather's rifle to scare off a man trying to get into the house when she was home alone as a teenager, she might not be alive today.

So, how do you feel about me using that story in response to people who want to ban guns, much less further restrict them? That actually happened to her, by the way.

Then what is your argument? Also answer the question, why is there far less violence in other first world democracies?

Okay, did she need an assault riffle to scare away that guy? Yeah a AR-15 was not used in Thousans Oaks, but it is still open of choice in these mass shootings, why is so important to have one of those?

In Canada its pretty easy to a hunting riffle, but if you want to fire a assault riffle you need to go gun club and rent one and you cannot take it off the club. What is wrong with that system?

 

[Raiden]

AR-15 wasn’t used in the Thoudand Oaks shooting, but it was used in other shooting like Aurora, CO (2012), Sandy Hook (2012), San Bernardino, CA (2015), and Parkland, FL (2018). We need sensible gun control laws more than ever.

 

[Raiden]

Ted Olson is representing CNN in their lawsuit against Trump and WH for their barring of Jim Acosta. Olson is one of the best lawyers in the country btw.

 

[MaceB]

Unless you have actually been involved in an incident or live in a neighborhood or a community with a spike in gun violence (like specific neighborhoods in Chicago), you're being irrational if you "live in fear of gun violence all the time." Your odds of being a victim of gun violence, much less a victim in a mass shooting, are quite small. But hey, if someone lives in fear of being hit by a drunk (or high) driver, that justifies further restricting the rights of individuals to drink alcohol or smoke pot, right? Because "live in fear," right?

But, "live in fear" is probably only a justification to restrict or remove certain rights that you coincidentally don't like people having . . .

According to the National Safety Council and the National Center for Health Statistics, 1 out of every 315 Americans will be killed by an assault with a gun. 1 in 11,000 will be killed by a mass shooting. This isn't taking into account accidental gun shots or suicides.

"The chance of dying from gun violence overall is about 50% greater than the lifetime risk of dying while riding inside a car, truck, or van (a category that excludes pedestrian, cyclist, and other deaths outside of a motor vehicle). It's also more than 10 times as high as dying from any force of nature, such as a hurricane, tornado, earthquake, flood, or lightning strike."

The odds that a gun will kill the average American may surprise you

And yes....? Because driving while drunk is a problem that could cause lives and could cause others to fear for their lives, we regulate their use......

Believe it or not, I don't get any jollies out of restricting gun rights. I have no personal grudge against gun owners. I advocate for stronger background checks, a Semi-Automatic Assault Rifle Ban, etc because we have a gun problem in this country, and I don't have an issue with making innocent people go through extra hoops in order to ensure that dangerous people don't get guns. Crazy, I know.

 

[Handsome Rob]

Then what is your argument? Also answer the question, why is there far less violence in other first world democracies?

Okay, did she need an assault riffle to scare away that guy? Yeah a AR-15 was not used in Thousans Oaks, but it is still open of choice in these mass shootings, why is so important to have one of those?

In Canada its pretty easy to a hunting riffle, but if you want to fire a assault riffle you need to go gun club and rent one and you cannot take it off the club. What is wrong with that system?

My argument is that if technology can be considered a limiting factor in 2nd Amendment rights (such as the 2nd Amendment only protects the right to own muskets), then technology is also a limiting factor in other rights . . . such as arguing the right to free speech is limited to the voice, pen and paper, and the printing press alone.

That's the post you originally responded to last Thursday. Of course, rather than addressing the meat of my post, you spun off and started asking how gun culture makes people more free (which appeared nowhere in the post I made that you responded to, by the way--I see a pattern emerging).

Hey, I've just been responding to your tangents since then instead of dealing with the issue I originally addressed.

 

[squeekness]

Ted Olson is representing CNN in their lawsuit against Trump and WH for their barring of Jim Acosta. Olson is one of the best lawyers in the country btw.

I hope they win.

 

[CaptainWagner]

Okay, answer me this, if gun control laws make no difference why is far less gun violence in other first world democracies?

Also why does the gun rights movement never seem to go to bat for guys like Philando Castile? For the leaders of the gun rights movement this right "need not apply" to the people targetted by the militarized police. The second amendment did not make Philando Castile safe, if he was not a gun owner he would still be alive.

Exactly. I would suspect it is because the profits from a militarized police and the overlapping of the NRA's base with the pro-"Shoot First" crowd keeps them from getting involved.

 

[Zarex]

Earlier I said I didn't have the answers regarding gun violence. But apparently my state does!
I looked for a state that’s taking gun violence seriously. I found Massachusetts.

 

[The Overlord]

My argument is that if technology can be considered a limiting factor in 2nd Amendment rights (such as the 2nd Amendment only protects the right to own muskets), then technology is also a limiting factor in other rights . . . such as arguing the right to free speech is limited to the voice, pen and paper, and the printing press alone.

That's the post you originally responded to last Thursday. Of course, rather than addressing the meat of my post, you spun off and started asking how gun culture makes people more free (which appeared nowhere in the post I made that you responded to, by the way--I see a pattern emerging).

Hey, I've just been responding to your tangents since then instead of dealing with the issue I originally addressed.

Okay and I reject that argument as well. Its a total apple and oranges situation. What new tech in regards to other rights is as much as a threat to public safety as assault riffles? I think you are applying the slippery slope falllacy and I do not think it is based on good logic.

And I think you are ignoring the massively hypocritical way "gun rights" is applied, so much as so that I think the gun rights movement fights for a privilege for themselves not a right for everyone, so in that context I do not think restricting guns is some massive threat to freedom. If I do not think the gun rights movrment fights for freedom, why would I agree with the idea that thrawting their agenda reduces freedom in general? Your theory makes a lot of assumptions I do not agree with.

 

[samsnee]

Don't worry guys, he'll let us know if North Korea is fooling him

 

[MagnarTheGreat]

Surprise! Donald Trump is connected to the same scam company his new questionable AG is as well.

 

[Teelie]

And yet Trump claims he doesn't know the guy. Despite this and how just last month he said he knew the man well.

 

[samsnee]

I don't think he really knew the guy personally. He just lies so much to come off like he knows more than he does. So last month when he said on Fox and Friends he knew him and said he was a good guy, he was probably lying then.

 

[Man in the Suit]

 

[Sithborg]

Good. Any of people that are Bolton's choice are suspect.

EDIT: Wait a minute, MELANIA wanted her fired? What the hell for? [brain bleach the obvious answer]

 

[Man in the Suit]

 

[OtherwiseKnownAs]

Trump, stung by midterms and nervous about Mueller, retreats from traditional presidential duties

For weeks this fall, an ebullient President Trump traveled relentlessly to hold raise-the-rafters campaign rallies — sometimes three a day — in states where his presence was likely to help Republicans on the ballot.

But his mood apparently has changed as he has taken measure of the electoral backlash that voters delivered Nov. 6. With the certainty that the incoming Democratic House majority will go after his tax returns and investigate his actions, and the likelihood of additional indictments by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, Trump has retreated into a cocoon of bitterness and resentment, according to multiple administration sources.

I think he might just be done, emotionally.

 

[Marvolo]

Like a pouting child.

 

[squeekness]

Surprise! Donald Trump is connected to the same scam company his new questionable AG is as well.

I am incapable of shock when it comes to Trump and his people.