Jump to content

Active shooter thread


Hugo Stiglitz

Recommended Posts

47 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

They are.  And firearms are regulated, heavily so.  And I believe you know that.  You want further regulation, and that's where the discussion begins.  I put the person who thinks we shouldn't have any access in the same camp as the person who feels we should have unlimited access.  The literal definition of opposite ends of a spectrum.  

No, it wont. Not in my children's lifetimes.  But I fear it would lead to a very, very bloody period in our history, if it ever did.  

yeah, that is where the discussion begins. but you just fucking pigeonholed it straightaway into some bullshit villain for you to argue against. you see that, right?

that said, i guess, let me ask you a direct question: do you think we should have any further regulation in order to stop mass shootings?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

What's the point of engaging fatty?  This has happened over and over.  There is no interest on his part to actually consider other viewpoints.  He's a fucking troll.  Stop.

Am I not considering @Willfully Hornviewpoints? Or @henrygandorf  Where am I trolling?  

19 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

yeah, that is where the discussion begins. but you just fucking pigeonholed it straightaway into some bullshit villain for you to argue against. you see that, right?

that said, i guess, let me ask you a direct question: do you think we should have any further regulation in order to stop mass shootings?

Not my intent.  Not a threat.  Just a fear I would have.  

Direct answer - yes. There is many things we can do.  Safe storage laws would be soooooo fucking simple, would even appease the free shit army, and would likely have kept several of our historical school shootings, in particular, from happening.  Santa Fe notably standing out.  Stiffer penalties for gun offenses would help remove people willing to use a gun for violence from our society.  We'd need to appease the "I don't think we should imprison people" crowd, but it very quickly removes people willing to use a firearm on another person from society.  I try very hard not to suggest things that don't matter to me, but would affect others, as a rule, but make selling them privately considerably more difficult.  I don't care, I don't sell guns.  That's fucking with a lot of people who've never done anything wrong, but as noted above, we've suffered thru change many a time.  What else, licensing?  Ok, as mentioned before, most here have the resources and time for this to be a nothing burger.  Some don't.  I'm told many can't even afford an ID due to cost or time away from work/travel to DMV...   I'm this close to being a man, so you want to make it 25, OK.   I think that's pretty fucked for the segment of our population that are off into the real world at 18, but it would likely result in less stories where they mention the gunman legally acquired the arm.    What else?   We can really tighten up our existing laws, and start to take them seriously?  Want to lie on your 4473, prosecute them whether they are Kyle Rittenhouse or Hunter Biden (neither of which were held accountable as you or I would).   How about let's not have an oops with a fucking branch of the military, paving the way for the Sutherland Springs fuckstick to commit his evil.     There's ALOT we can do BEFORE we even start the discussion of red flag laws, which pretty clearly would have stopped lots of these mass shootings, IF implemented properly.  Then, we can get down to the discussion of the intricacies of the arms themselves, imo. 

18 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

who asked you to do that?

Well, the "cop out" that Patricio mentioned was me not willing to change the party I vote for over this single issue.  I guess he literally didn't "ask" me to change my vote, but it was one of those "you don't really take this serious/care unless you are willing to vote someone opposite of your beliefs in other areas into office"     

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There should be increasing pressure brought to bear on those who value guns more than people. The onus should be on them to defend mass murders by gun and not on the people who can’t be free to fully pursue happiness because of unchecked gun violence in this country.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Am I not considering @Willfully Hornviewpoints? Or @henrygandorf  e opposite of your beliefs in other areas into office"     

No, you aren't.  Your posting history is well known.  You just dance around the issues, either because you get off frustrating people who are actuallly discussing things in good faith, or worse, you're a fucking sociopath who doesn't actually have any position one way or another.

I vote #2.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

No, you aren't.  Your posting history is well known.  You just dance around the issues, either because you get off frustrating people who are actuallly discussing things in good faith, or worse, you're a fucking sociopath who doesn't actually have any position one way or another.

I vote #2.

Oh I certainly hold a position.  I'm having a discussion with several posters. You have determined it's not in good faith, but that's absolutely not my problem.  Sorry not sorry my position doesn't mirror yours, so it could be held in good faith. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Imagine trying to frame Diane Feinstein and Beto fucking O'Rourke as the Democratic thought leaders with regards to gun control and then wanting to be taken seriously. 

If they were "silenced" (because they're so fucking loud already), he'd just construct another bogeyman. It's what these people do.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

The point is they needed them to respond to a genuine threat. Or are insinuating that if the cops weren’t carrying guns then the drivers or passengers in the stopped cars wouldn’t have shot at them?

Nah, you can’t possibly be suggesting that. That would be asinine. 

Umm, if they got shot, they weren't using their guns to respond to a genuine threat. Their guns may have been on their person but so was a hole where a bullet went in.  

My point was that your particular example was not helpful to your point that cops need guns to keep bad guys from shooting them, because the specific example you used was in fact a situation where bad guys did use guns to shoot the good guys with guns.  The good guy's gun was not a deterrent to the bad guy and furthermore did not keep the good guy safe against the bad guy.  Go back to the drawing board and think of other examples to make your point, because that one was terrible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Oh I certainly hold a position.  I'm having a discussion with several posters. You have determined it's not in good faith, but that's absolutely not my problem.  Sorry not sorry my position doesn't mirror yours, so it could be held in good faith. 

Bruh. You think that clear-cutting 80 acres of forest to build an urban driving course for police is what people mean by "police need to be better trained". 

You are not someone to be taken seriously. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

Imagine trying to frame Diane Feinstein and Beto fucking O'Rourke as the Democratic thought leaders with regards to gun control and then wanting to be taken seriously. 

If they were "silenced" (because they're so fucking loud already), he'd just construct another bogeyman. It's what these people do.

By all means, who are the prominent leaders from the party wrt gun control?

5 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Hence why he is on my ignore list.

Well fuck.  I'm heartbroken.  I'm sorry I messed up the echo of similar thoughts you built around yourself.  It's OK, you are correct about everything.  Just ask all the people you agree with. 

 

3 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

same. y'all are responding to air for all I know

Again.  Sorry I held dissimilar beliefs than you.  Hopefully you can be reassured you're always correct by placing everyone who disagrees on ignore.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

I guess.  I was just trying to establish what is an acceptable firearm in your eyes. 

One that is incapable of killing children by the dozen.

And I grew up with guns. I, too, have multiple shotguns and rifles. 
 

But I recognize gun availability is what has crippled this country’s security. And I will vote for folks who will try to remove the threat. Join me.

.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, NameAlreadyInUse said:

Umm, if they got shot, they weren't using their guns to respond to a genuine threat. Their guns may have been on their person but so was a hole where a bullet went in.  

Is that what constitutes a cogent argument in your mind? Yikes. That’s pretty sad.

If a guy draws a gun on a cop, I think it’s a good idea for the cop to have a gun with which to defend himself. The cop may or may not get hit by a bullet fired at him. That’s irrelevant. If he draws and fires back and survives the assault, whether by killing or disabling his attacker or forcing his attacker to get back in his car and flee, he’s going to be damn glad he was carrying a gun. And even in situations where the cop loses the shootout and dies, that’s hardly an argument for why the cop shouldn’t carry a gun because it didn’t do him any good. That would be a really stupid argument to make. Even dumber than arguing that if a cop gets shot then it means his gun isn’t a defensive weapon. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never made an argument that a cop shouldn't carry a gun.  I was responding to your argument.  You didn't say cops getting shot at, you said cops getting shot.  Like I said, your example sucked for the point you were trying to make. 

To reiterate, I only made an argument that your example for why cops should carry guns was terrible, which it was.

For the record, I do think that cops should carry guns.  I'm generally ok with gun ownership.  In fact, I even have guns in my own house.  So whatever it was you thought I was arguing, hopefully the first two paragraphs are clear enough that my response was about the quality of your argument.  That's it.  Improve your arguments and you might be able to persuade more people to agree with you.  And as a bonus lesson, if you read what people are actually writing and not what you are scared they might have meant to write, it will be good for your blood pressure and make people more willing to have a real conversation with you.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/25/2023 at 3:18 PM, fattyflattie said:

Oh I certainly hold a position.  I'm having a discussion with several posters. You have determined it's not in good faith, but that's absolutely not my problem.  Sorry not sorry my position doesn't mirror yours, so it could be held in good faith. 

 

On 1/25/2023 at 3:26 PM, aggie08 said:

Imagine trying to frame Diane Feinstein and Beto fucking O'Rourke as the Democratic thought leaders with regards to gun control and then wanting to be taken seriously. 

If they were "silenced" (because they're so fucking loud already), he'd just construct another bogeyman. It's what these people do.

initially, i posted about how eventually (not in our lifetimes) there would be no guns, or at least no gun violence/mass-shootings.  fatty dropped a laugh rep.  then he mentioned some politicians like feinstein and beto, and i will admit, i do not know their exact policy solutions for this and i don't feel like looking them up.  for this exercise, let's assume they want all-out clean sweep zero guns.  ok.

so here is my question - is it laughable to think that eventually there will be no gun violence or objectionable to think that politicians can get rid of guns because:

(1) it's a logistical nightmare because there are just so many fucking guns out there?  or

(2) because the mere thought of living in a society with zero gun ownership is absurd?

take away everything you know about moron americans and how free people think they are, and just try to answer the above question.  why is the idea preposterous to you?  or to any other people on the right - feel free to chime in, i'm genuinely curious.  if thanos snapped his finger tomorrow and guns were gone, would people go on with their lives?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the solution to gun violence in this country is to treat anyone with a gun as a threat.  Just preemptively shoot them.  Cops, carrriers, whatever.   That person has a gun, I have a gun, mine is in working order faster.   There’s millions of them, I’m never gonna finish but you have to start somewhere.  

Edited by Judge Roybeanbag
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/25/2023 at 3:15 PM, henrygandorf said:

and this is a problem.  if the issue is gun violence (deaths and injuries from guns) then one of those ends solves the entire problem.  the other one doesn't.  they are not the same.

You are never going to end gun violence. An outright ban of guns will not result in zero gun deaths. You are arguing from the extreme, which is fallacious. On top of that, we have a constitutional right to bear arms. You are never going to get a majority of Americans to agree to extreme gun restrictions.

Edited by Sawbonz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Sawbonz said:

You are never going to end gun violence. An outright ban of guns will not result in zero gun deaths. You were arguing from the extreme, which is fallacious. On top of that, we have a constitutional right to bear arms. You are never going to get a majority of Americans to agree to extreme gun restrictions.

I don’t disagree with you, but how many gun toters have actually read and comprehended the constitution?  All of it.  One, maybe?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There will be an end to gun violence when humans are extinct or there are cataclysmic events that result in loss of capability to produce guns and ammo. 
 

that is not to say we shouldn’t make every reasonable effort to limit gun violence. Reasonable people can disagree about how to get there but the idea that it can be achieved without some limits on access is absurd. The problem is one side has become completely unreasonable. A majority of republicans want stricter gun control laws. They are held hostage by an extreme minority of the party 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

You are never going to end gun violence. 

i'm not, but it will end.  or reduced greatly.

2 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

An outright ban of guns will not result in zero gun deaths. You are arguing from the extreme, which is fallacious. 

50 people a day die from non-suicide gun violence in america.  the aim should be to get that number down, even if it's not zero.

and i'm not arguing for a gun ban.  if it was up to a vote and i had the only vote in the country, i would vote for it, but that's not how anything works.  i'm not in congress nor the senate.  i'm just trying (with my most recent post) to figure out why a gun ban is absurd and/or hilarious.

6 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

we have a constitutional right to bear arms.

orly?

7 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

You are never going to get a majority of Americans to agree to extreme gun restrictions.

yeah, when it happens, it's not gonna be up to them.  the majority of the country believes in a woman's right to choose and here we are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

I don’t disagree with you, but how many gun toters have actually read and comprehended the constitution?  All of it.  One, maybe?

image.thumb.jpeg.c1a63d8e5478e54e8721a49173807f27.jpeg

 

I’ll take the under

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

On top of that, we have a constitutional right to bear arms. You are never going to get a majority of Americans to agree to extreme gun restrictions.

All true. And we must realize that the "Second Amendment" ideology is no longer about merely protecting gun rights. The unstated gun-loving ideology is about effecting a culture of “ultraviolence” — as described by Anthony Burgess in A Clockwork Orange (1962). “Ultraviolence” is random, senseless, and excessive violence running amok in society.

Welcome to 21st century America. Schools, grocery stores, night clubs, movie theaters, college campuses, military bases, fast food restaurants, and so on — all subject to random, senseless, mass shootings. It's all ultraviolence, with the aim of gun rights to help terrorize a fearful, hateful society armed to their teeth. 

The Second Amendment will be used to justify and impose violent tyranny (not prevent it). 

Edited by BevoAbyss
missing phrase
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

i'm not, but it will end.  or reduced greatly.

50 people a day die from non-suicide gun violence in america.  the aim should be to get that number down, even if it's not zero.

and i'm not arguing for a gun ban.  if it was up to a vote and i had the only vote in the country, i would vote for it, but that's not how anything works.  i'm not in congress nor the senate.  i'm just trying (with my most recent post) to figure out why a gun ban is absurd and/or hilarious.

orly?

yeah, when it happens, it's not gonna be up to them.  the majority of the country believes in a woman's right to choose and here we are.

I don’t think many would argue it won’t be reduced greatly. You said end

 

The constitution literally says a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. People like to impute [as part of] but that is not the language that was ratified. I doubt it was an oversight. And they could have run it by Noah Webster had they wanted to. 

 

Ask a lawyer here if they routinely are successful at adding language that materially changes the terms of a contract after it has been signed

 

An outright gun ban is not going to happen because Democrats will not cede that kind of power to the far left of their party, regardless of what the Fox News etc wants its sheep to believe 

Edited by Sawbonz
Fing autocorrect
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Ask a lawyer here if they routinely are successful at adding language that materially changes the terms of a contract after it has been signed

you're saying you don't think you could ever change something called...an amendment?

12 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

I don’t think many would argue it won’t be reduced greatly. You said end

it will end.  it might take a few hundred years but it will.  people evolve.  a person doesn't, but people do.

this is a relatively new problem and it's isolated in one country.  democracy might end first.  america too.  but gun violence will end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

you're saying you don't think you could ever change something called...an amendment?

it will end.  it might take a few hundred years but it will.  people evolve.  a person doesn't, but people do.

this is a relatively new problem and it's isolated in one country.  democracy might end first.  america too.  but gun violence will end.

Humans have killed other humans since there have been humans. That’s not going to change. Guns are the most efficient way to do that currently. The only thing we are likely to evolve to is a more efficient method

 

and no I don’t think you will change something called an “amendment” given the criteria for repealing an amendment. “Could” it happen? Sure, but that’s not the argument you have been making

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

enlighten me. 

Your take:

4 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

this is a relatively new problem and it's isolated in one country. 

Maybe I read your post incorrectly, it's certainly been a long week. But what I am reading is that you believe the US is unique to gun violence? Is that correct?

Edited by fattyflattie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Your take:

Maybe I read your post incorrectly, it's certainly been a long week. But what I am reading is that you believe the US is unique to gun violence? Is that correct?

yes, my understanding is that the issue is exponentially worse here than in other equally developed countries. 

if i am off base, please enlighten me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

Humans have killed other humans since there have been humans. That’s not going to change. Guns are the most efficient way to do that currently. The only thing we are likely to evolve to is a more efficient method

 

and no I don’t think you will change something called an “amendment” given the criteria for repealing an amendment. “Could” it happen? Sure, but that’s not the argument you have been making

 

 

my argument has been intentionally vague, but you sure love telling me what it isn’t. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

Is slavery in the constitution?


Article 1, Section 2 

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. 

Yes, the word slavery was not used in the constitution. But there were Free Persons and Other Persons. If they weren’t free? What were they? Not free. 

13th Amendment 

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

The constitution had to be amended to outlaw slavery because it wasn’t prohibited in the original document. In fact, one could argue, as I am, that using “other persons” in juxtaposition to “free persons” for counting people is indeed not only endorsing the institution but codifying it. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:


Article 1, Section 2 

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. 

Yes, the word slavery was not used in the constitution. But there were Free Persons and Other Persons. If they weren’t free? What were they? Not free. 

13th Amendment 

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

The constitution had to be amended to outlaw slavery because it wasn’t prohibited in the original document. In fact, one could argue, as I am, that using “other persons” in juxtaposition to “free persons” for counting people is indeed not only endorsing the institution but codifying it. 

That’s a lot of words to say slavery is not in the constitution.  Look, you can be as pedantic as you want, but the barrier to amending the constitution or repealing an amendment is very high.  The likelihood that the Second Amendment would be repealed or materially altered approaches zero. That is not going to change, as long as the constitution is the document that governs our land. If you can think of a plausible scenario where individual gun ownership in the United States is banned entirely, other than via a bloody civil war, go ahead and lay it out. 
 

also, it is OK to acknowledge reality without being a proponent of that reality. 
 

 

 

 

and of course he was killed. In America. With a gun

Edited by Sawbonz
Redundant
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

you're saying you don't think you could ever change something called...an amendment?

it will end.  it might take a few hundred years but it will.  people evolve.  a person doesn't, but people do.

this is a relatively new problem and it's isolated in one country.  democracy might end first.  america too.  but gun violence will end.

Well the current Supreme Court managed to change its interpretation of the Constitution to eliminate the right to an abortion.  A subsequent court could overturn Heller to interpret the Second Amendment as Justice Burger has suggested:  "The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires."

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, DDD Dad said:

Well the current Supreme Court managed to change its interpretation of the Constitution to eliminate the right to an abortion.  A subsequent court could overturn Heller to interpret the Second Amendment as Justice Burger has suggested:  "The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires."

and wasn't there an assault weapons bill that restricted/banned certain types of guns?  didn't we let that shit expire like morons?

seems like the ban itself would've gone against the constitution, if that's how we're pretending to interpret it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

also, it is OK to acknowledge reality without being a proponent of that reality.

I acknowledge amending the constitution is near impossible, especially in today’s political climate, but it is OK to be a proponent of change. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...