RebKell's Junkie Boards
Board Junkies Forums
 
Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index

49 Dead at Gay Nightclub Shooting in Orlando
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » Area 51
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66772
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/15/16 7:30 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Howee wrote:
This would imply the constitution, e.g., the bill of rights, is veritably flawless and beyond reproach. It's not. I'd argue the 2nd amendment has become one of its more troublesome points, in ways the authors could not have foreseen.


It implies that the constitution is the law of the land. If there are things that need to be changed, there is a method to enact such changes. There have been 27 such amendments.



_________________
Let us not deceive ourselves. Our educational institutions have proven to be no bastions of democracy.
Ex-Ref



Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 8833



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/15/16 8:10 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Michelle89 wrote:
Am I the only one who thinks: how the hell is it possible that a person that was interrogated by the FBI multiple times for terrorist suspicions could buy such a gun legally?

If people in America want to own guns to protect families I understand but why are they against better rules and restrictions for people with mental illness or criminals or people with terrorist suspicions? So that those people cant buy a gun legally. What is the problem with that?


I'm thinking that I heard one "expert" say that you could be on the 'no fly list' but still be able to buy pretty much whatever gun you want.

What is incredibly scary is that he tried to buy body armor. Think how many more could have died.


toad455



Joined: 16 Nov 2005
Posts: 22470
Location: NJ


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/15/16 8:36 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/9wOufFCoviA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>



_________________
LET'S GO LIBERTY!!!!!!

Twitter: @TBRBWAY
Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15690
Location: OREGON (in my heart)


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/15/16 11:30 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Howee wrote:
Soo...CAN I arm myself with hand grenades? If not, why....?


Hmm. No takers? Okay.

Yay or Nay?

I believe this mini-debate parallels the Gun Control argument to a T.

Michelle89 wrote:
Am I the only one who thinks: how the hell is it possible that a person that was interrogated by the FBI multiple times for terrorist suspicions could buy such a gun legally?


Nope. I mentioned it a few posts back: Wink

Howee wrote:
And then, THE REALLY BIG QUESTION: why would someone with his background/history not have induced more concern or action by those around him?

However, I'd actually hold those closest to him most accountable, i.e., his wife; she apparently had a TON of 'foreknowledge'.



_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"


Last edited by Howee on 06/15/16 11:41 am; edited 2 times in total
Genero36



Joined: 24 Apr 2005
Posts: 11188



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/15/16 11:36 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote





_________________
I'm all for the separation of church and hate.
Genero36



Joined: 24 Apr 2005
Posts: 11188



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/15/16 11:40 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote






_________________
I'm all for the separation of church and hate.
Genero36



Joined: 24 Apr 2005
Posts: 11188



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/15/16 11:41 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote




_________________
I'm all for the separation of church and hate.
Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15690
Location: OREGON (in my heart)


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/15/16 11:45 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
Howee wrote:
This would imply the constitution, e.g., the bill of rights, is veritably flawless and beyond reproach. It's not. I'd argue the 2nd amendment has become one of its more troublesome points, in ways the authors could not have foreseen.


It implies that the constitution is the law of the land. If there are things that need to be changed, there is a method to enact such changes. There have been 27 such amendments.


A "method"? Well, doesn't that sound democratic! Until you realize that method for change is fucked over by the likes of the NRA/$$$. It's not really democratic anymore, is it?



_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
Genero36



Joined: 24 Apr 2005
Posts: 11188



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/15/16 11:51 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Actor Wilson Cruz Lost Family Member in Orlando Massacre

Quote:
"Brenda went to Pulse the way she frequently did, with her 21-year-old openly gay son, Isaiah," Cruz told ET. "They loved to go there on that night because it was Latin night and they could be with their friends, dance salsa and find refuge in a safe space."

Cruz said "that joy" and that refuge was taken away after the massacre that left 49 dead and more than 50 injured.

"We are devastated," he added.

Cruz also took to Facebook late this weekend to pay homage to McCool with a picture.

"This was the last time I saw Brenda McCool. She was with us when our grandfather passed this passed [sic] fall," he wrote. "She was a fighter. A cancer survivor. A stellar mother. A proud and fierce advocate for her LGBT family."

He added about the victim, "She spoke passionately about how much she loved her children. She was hilarious and loving and tore up the dance floor when salsa or anything was playing. I can't believe she's gone."


https://gma.yahoo.com/actor-wilson-cruz-lost-family-member-orlando-massacre-180906893--abc-news-celebrities.html

<embed><iframe width="854" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/LOAo9iwU3Bo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></embed>

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOAo9iwU3Bo



_________________
I'm all for the separation of church and hate.
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66772
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/15/16 11:54 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Howee wrote:
pilight wrote:
Howee wrote:
This would imply the constitution, e.g., the bill of rights, is veritably flawless and beyond reproach. It's not. I'd argue the 2nd amendment has become one of its more troublesome points, in ways the authors could not have foreseen.


It implies that the constitution is the law of the land. If there are things that need to be changed, there is a method to enact such changes. There have been 27 such amendments.


A "method"? Well, doesn't that sound democratic! Until you realize that method for change is fucked over by the likes of the NRA/$$$. It's not really democratic anymore, is it?



You really want the rules decided by the majority? We're not strictly a democracy and with good reason.



_________________
Let us not deceive ourselves. Our educational institutions have proven to be no bastions of democracy.
mercfan3



Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 19725



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/15/16 12:38 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:
Queenie wrote:
"A well-regulated militia" seems to imply some level of gun control at some point, but what do I know?

To be fair, the term "Well-Regulated" as it was used at the time was used to mean "in proper working order" (as used in the Oxford English Dictionary circa 1789).

As much as I wish it wasn't, the historical context to the 2nd amendment is clear. Since the founders had just given the government the power to raise and maintain a standing army, they wanted to make sure that it wouldn't be used against the people to subjugate them. This was in direct response to the fact that most European nations had disarmed their citizenry in an attempt to maintain power.

The idea here was that the citizens needed to be able to form a functioning militia to be able to protect a "free State". And a functioning militia requires both the ability to have weapons and the knowledge of how to use them.

It would be so much easier if this wasn't the case, but an armed populace was exactly what they wanted to be able to ensure as it was what allowed them to actually overthrow the English, and their biggest fear at the time was that the new Federal Government would turn into a new Monarchy.


But that's the entire point.

We weren't supposed to be armed to be able to shoot each other, or to protect ourselves from fellow citizens, or just because we fucking liked guns.

We were supposed to be armed to protect ourselves from the government.

That point is moot. The government have nukes and drones and so many other weapons that the AR 15 or any other semi-automatic weapon doesn't stand a chance against. So unless we're going to advocate that all civilians get nukes and tanks if we'd like them, the entire purpose of the second amendment is irrelevant now.


Likewise, this shit is just common sense. Enough already. It needs to stop being politicized. I don't even like handguns, but if there was any evidence that restrictions are needed, it's this weekend.

The man that shot Christina Grimmie came armed with two handguns, an extra magazine, and a hunting knife. He shot her three times, was tackled by Christina's brother and no other innocent individual died. You (and I'm speaking in general, I know you - as in Justin - fully agree with gun control) can't tell me, with that amount of weapons, the man was only planning on shooting Christina Grimmie. And so, her death was incredibly tragic, but it was one death. (IMO one too many, but at this point I'm willing to compromise and just ban semi-automatics) Do we think that's different if the guy has an AR 15? Or imagine if this guy walked into the club with a handgun..are there 50 people dead and 50 people injured?

This is some obvious shit right here.



_________________
“Anyone point out that a Donald Trump anagram is ‘Lord Dampnut’”- Colin Mochrie
Michelle89



Joined: 17 Nov 2010
Posts: 16464
Location: Holland


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/15/16 12:48 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
Michelle89 wrote:
Am I the only one who thinks: how the hell is it possible that a person that was interrogated by the FBI multiple times for terrorist suspicions could buy such a gun legally?

If people in America want to own guns to protect families I understand but why are they against better rules and restrictions for people with mental illness or criminals or people with terrorist suspicions? So that those people cant buy a gun legally. What is the problem with that?


The FBI didn't find anything when they interrogated him. Stopping people because you think they are suspicious is no different from Turmp's Muslim immigration ban.


Stopping people that showed suspicious terrorist behaviour from buying guns sounds a pretty normal thing to do. You cant compare that with Trumps crazy plans.



_________________
"Sue Bird and Lauren Jackson were and are the dynamic duo. They're the one-two punch. They're all the clich�s possible to describe people that perfectly complement each other, who make each other better and also bring out the best in the team." �Karen Bryant
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66772
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/15/16 1:03 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Michelle89 wrote:
pilight wrote:
Michelle89 wrote:
Am I the only one who thinks: how the hell is it possible that a person that was interrogated by the FBI multiple times for terrorist suspicions could buy such a gun legally?

If people in America want to own guns to protect families I understand but why are they against better rules and restrictions for people with mental illness or criminals or people with terrorist suspicions? So that those people cant buy a gun legally. What is the problem with that?


The FBI didn't find anything when they interrogated him. Stopping people because you think they are suspicious is no different from Turmp's Muslim immigration ban.


Stopping people that showed suspicious terrorist behaviour from buying guns sounds a pretty normal thing to do. You cant compare that with Trumps crazy plans.


Any other rights people should be denied based on suspicion?



_________________
Let us not deceive ourselves. Our educational institutions have proven to be no bastions of democracy.
Genero36



Joined: 24 Apr 2005
Posts: 11188



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/15/16 1:11 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

<embed><iframe width="854" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/nGGbdS4rV1o" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></embed>

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGGbdS4rV1o



_________________
I'm all for the separation of church and hate.
justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/15/16 2:10 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

mercfan3 wrote:

That point is moot. The government have nukes and drones and so many other weapons that the AR 15 or any other semi-automatic weapon doesn't stand a chance against. So unless we're going to advocate that all civilians get nukes and tanks if we'd like them, the entire purpose of the second amendment is irrelevant now.


Likewise, this shit is just common sense. Enough already. It needs to stop being politicized. I don't even like handguns, but if there was any evidence that restrictions are needed, it's this weekend.


Yes, it may be obvious, and the whole reason to arm the populace may not exist any more...but that is completely irrelevant when it comes to the Bill of Rights. For whatever reason, they felt that people should have the right to arm themselves and thus they guaranteed that right.

Over time the reason why people still want that right may have changed, but that does not mean that the government is allowed to ignore it. The framers created a way for the people to give up those rights if they felt that they were no longer applicable. But they intentionally made it extremely hard to do, so that a simple majority could not dictate these things for everyone. Basically there needs to be a fairly universal consensus across the entire nation that the right should be removed before it can be.

So while I agree with you that it is a problem, and that it is one that the framers probably never foresaw, and that if I had a vote on changing that amendment I would be in favor of changing it, the reality is that until everyone is on the same page it is a non starter. Perhaps some day in the future enough people we get so fed up that American attitudes will change and we will be able to change the Constitution in this regard. But even though it sucks in this specific case, I don't think we really want the government to have the ability to pick and choose what rights they want to continue to grant and which ones they want to limit. That's dangerous ground.



_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8151
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/15/16 2:45 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:
mercfan3 wrote:

That point is moot. The government have nukes and drones and so many other weapons that the AR 15 or any other semi-automatic weapon doesn't stand a chance against. So unless we're going to advocate that all civilians get nukes and tanks if we'd like them, the entire purpose of the second amendment is irrelevant now.


Likewise, this shit is just common sense. Enough already. It needs to stop being politicized. I don't even like handguns, but if there was any evidence that restrictions are needed, it's this weekend.


Yes, it may be obvious, and the whole reason to arm the populace may not exist any more...but that is completely irrelevant when it comes to the Bill of Rights. For whatever reason, they felt that people should have the right to arm themselves and thus they guaranteed that right.

Over time the reason why people still want that right may have changed, but that does not mean that the government is allowed to ignore it. The framers created a way for the people to give up those rights if they felt that they were no longer applicable. But they intentionally made it extremely hard to do, so that a simple majority could not dictate these things for everyone. Basically there needs to be a fairly universal consensus across the entire nation that the right should be removed before it can be.

So while I agree with you that it is a problem, and that it is one that the framers probably never foresaw, and that if I had a vote on changing that amendment I would be in favor of changing it, the reality is that until everyone is on the same page it is a non starter. Perhaps some day in the future enough people we get so fed up that American attitudes will change and we will be able to change the Constitution in this regard. But even though it sucks in this specific case, I don't think we really want the government to have the ability to pick and choose what rights they want to continue to grant and which ones they want to limit. That's dangerous ground.


JIT, I agree with your analysis as far as it goes, but you are forgetting about the Supreme Court.

One person can effectively repeal the Second Amendment . . . namely, the justice who replaces Antonin Scalia.

Scalia authored the 2008 Heller decision, which held by a 5-4 majority that the Second Amendment protects an individual right of personal self-defense. A fifth politically liberal justice would likely vote to overrule Heller, and hold that the Second Amendment does not protect such an individual right, but is simply an anachronism related to the ability to have armed state militias in the 18th century. Since state militias are no longer relevant even if they exist, such an overruling of the Heller decision would effectively gut the Second Amendment and allow almost any form of gun control or abolition.

The identity of this one omnipotent person is possibly the most important reason to vote for Trump or Biden.
justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/15/16 4:12 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

GlennMacGrady wrote:

The identity of this one omnipotent person is possibly the most important reason to vote for Trump or Biden.

Or the Senate could confirm Garland...

Although there was that false narrative about him with Heller (he only voted to hear the case en banc not to overturn), his judicial record has him siding strongly with existing precedent. Which in this case would be to remain consistent with Heller.



_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
mercfan3



Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 19725



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/15/16 4:33 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
Michelle89 wrote:
Am I the only one who thinks: how the hell is it possible that a person that was interrogated by the FBI multiple times for terrorist suspicions could buy such a gun legally?

If people in America want to own guns to protect families I understand but why are they against better rules and restrictions for people with mental illness or criminals or people with terrorist suspicions? So that those people cant buy a gun legally. What is the problem with that?


The FBI didn't find anything when they interrogated him. Stopping people because you think they are suspicious is no different from Turmp's Muslim immigration ban.


Okay, why did we let a man who physically abused his wife buy a gun?



_________________
“Anyone point out that a Donald Trump anagram is ‘Lord Dampnut’”- Colin Mochrie
norwester



Joined: 14 Jun 2006
Posts: 6367
Location: Seattle


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/15/16 5:54 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

RE: protection against tyranny
As has been stated, this was the main reason for the 2nd amendment, historically, and it holds true today. Of course a tank or military weapons can overwhelm a civilian with an AR-15. But it can't overwhelm thousands, particularly because it takes citizens to run those tanks and other military equipment. I guess you do always have the nuclear option, but that's a different story.

RE: mass shootings and gun control
I find it a bit precious that everyone gets all excited about gun control when there's a mass shooting, but is pretty much silent on the rest of the 90% of deaths. I understand the emotional reaction. I just don't understand it logically. There are proven methods of reducing gun violence, and they don't have to do with banning guns. But no one seems to care about that. I base that on the response when I posted an article about it some time ago (pre-Primary season). The response? Crickets. Proven methods of reducing gun violence, but because they don't include "gun control" I guess they weren't sexy enough to be worthy of discussion. That's why I have a hard time taking any of this discussion seriously, objectively. Give me a break. Rolling Eyes

Re: homophobia
The same way we are complicit as a society for promoting rape culture, we're complicit as a society in supporting a culture where homophobia is not only acceptable, but promoted. Anderson Cooper highlighted some of this hypocrisy in his lambasting of the FL Attorney General (and rightly so). I don't want to focus on guns. Guns aren't the problem here. Terrorists aren't the problem here. The culture of homophobia is the problem, but no one wants to talk about that either. Rolling Eyes



_________________
Don't you know the plural of "anecdote" is "data"?
norwester



Joined: 14 Jun 2006
Posts: 6367
Location: Seattle


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/15/16 5:58 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote




_________________
Don't you know the plural of "anecdote" is "data"?
norwester



Joined: 14 Jun 2006
Posts: 6367
Location: Seattle


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/15/16 6:03 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Anderson Cooper berates Florida AG Pam Bondi over Orlando

This goes right along with the other article I posted where the gay British journalist was absolutely fed up with the lack of focus on the fact that this was an attack specifically targeted against the queer community, yet there was little discussion of homophobia (institutional or otherwise).



_________________
Don't you know the plural of "anecdote" is "data"?
mercfan3



Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 19725



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/15/16 6:12 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

norwester wrote:
RE: protection against tyranny
As has been stated, this was the main reason for the 2nd amendment, historically, and it holds true today. Of course a tank or military weapons can overwhelm a civilian with an AR-15. But it can't overwhelm thousands, particularly because it takes citizens to run those tanks and other military equipment. I guess you do always have the nuclear option, but that's a different story.

RE: mass shootings and gun control
I find it a bit precious that everyone gets all excited about gun control when there's a mass shooting, but is pretty much silent on the rest of the 90% of deaths. I understand the emotional reaction. I just don't understand it logically. There are proven methods of reducing gun violence, and they don't have to do with banning guns. But no one seems to care about that. I base that on the response when I posted an article about it some time ago (pre-Primary season). The response? Crickets. Proven methods of reducing gun violence, but because they don't include "gun control" I guess they weren't sexy enough to be worthy of discussion. That's why I have a hard time taking any of this discussion seriously, objectively. Give me a break. Rolling Eyes

Re: homophobia
The same way we are complicit as a society for promoting rape culture, we're complicit as a society in supporting a culture where homophobia is not only acceptable, but promoted. Anderson Cooper highlighted some of this hypocrisy in his lambasting of the FL Attorney General (and rightly so). I don't want to focus on guns. Guns aren't the problem here. Terrorists aren't the problem here. The culture of homophobia is the problem, but no one wants to talk about that either. Rolling Eyes


On Gun control:

I want a ban on semi-assault weapons all the time, thanks. And I have for a very long time.

Why? Because it makes sense. There is no good reason for civilians to have them, and it only leads to shit like this. It needs to be fixed.

I would personally just get rid of guns. But, see, I'm not someone who is unwilling to compromise..and I prefer incremental change to big ideas that amount to nothing. Wink So strict background checks and a ban on semi-assault weapons is a good place to start.

re homophobia:

I agree that this attack was homophobic in nature. It was hate filled. And it could have come from more than just an Isis sympathizer.

But if the shooter didn't have a semi-automatic weapon, 100 people aren't shot. America has a lot of problems. Homophobia is a huge one. But the NRA is another big one.



_________________
“Anyone point out that a Donald Trump anagram is ‘Lord Dampnut’”- Colin Mochrie
norwester



Joined: 14 Jun 2006
Posts: 6367
Location: Seattle


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/15/16 6:32 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

So it would have been better if only 10 or 15 people had died. I get it. Just a compromise to allow hand guns, then, but not address the lack of funding for programs that work to actually reduce gun deaths (which a ban does not seem to do).

Ban those semi-automatic rifles that are responsible for relatively few deaths per year because people don't "need" them. Because shooting isn't a valid sport. Because differently-abled hunters shouldn't be hunting anyway (semi-auto rifles are easier for them to handle). Because they're scary looking. Because the majority of Americans don't have one or want one. Because those who do must be scary and immature. But not because we actually care about reducing gun deaths.

What problem are we even trying to address here? And why is the national conversation about guns and not gays? Confused



_________________
Don't you know the plural of "anecdote" is "data"?
norwester



Joined: 14 Jun 2006
Posts: 6367
Location: Seattle


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/15/16 7:04 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

You Can Stop Gun Violence the Same Way You Stop AIDS or TB

http://cureviolence.org/

I'm sorry for my tone, mercfan. I know that you've been a consistent advocate on this forum for some sort of gun control. I wasn't trying to be trite. I just get frustrated. I read an article (which I posted, so I'll keep looking for it) somewhere about--I think--the Cure Violence guy who participated in Biden's task force and felt that there was little to no receptiveness on the part of the administration for his methods.

So I can't help but think that the solutions aren't "sexy" enough. They don't call for banning guns as a first step. Perhaps it's not tangible enough? But these are methods of interrupting the cycle of violence that have been shown to work. And I just wish we could talk about these things instead of gun control, which is a prohibition strategy--types of strategies that have not been shown to be effective in the US (and in fact they promote additional violence).



_________________
Don't you know the plural of "anecdote" is "data"?
mercfan3



Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 19725



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/15/16 7:07 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

norwester wrote:
So it would have been better if only 10 or 15 people had died. I get it. Just a compromise to allow hand guns, then, but not address the lack of funding for programs that work to actually reduce gun deaths (which a ban does not seem to do).


Yes, it would have. 10 or 15 people dying is 10 or 15 people too many, but it's still not 50. Like I said, I'd ban all of it, but that ain't happening..so I'd like to fix it a bit. BTW: Half of all mass shootings have happened after 2005, after the ban on semi-automatic weapons was lifted.

I said this is a good place to start, not were we should finish.

See, Countries that have actually banned weapons have found that banning the weapons works extraordinarily well. It's clear if you just look at the stats. I'd be interested in reading your article, but I doubt very much it has been more successful, since Australia's zero mass shootings since their ban.

norwester wrote:

Ban those semi-automatic rifles that are responsible for relatively few deaths per year because people don't "need" them. Because shooting isn't a valid sport. Because differently-abled hunters shouldn't be hunting anyway (semi-auto rifles are easier for them to handle). Because they're scary looking. Because the majority of Americans don't have one or want one. Because those who do must be scary and immature. But not because we actually care about reducing gun deaths.

What problem are we even trying to address here? And why is the national conversation about guns and not gays? Confused


I'm sorry, this just isn't rational. At all. You're suggesting we should allow people to have tools that are literally only good for mass killing because some people think it's fun. Some people would think bombs are fun. Hell, some people think killing is fun.

We're trying to address gun violence. There's a very simple way to do that, but the NRA would rather people die.

As clearly homophobic as THIS attack was, we have had 174 mass shootings this year. We've got a major problem with guns.

edit: That article is interesting. I'm not sure I buy that it would work in this country though, and it's not the simplest solution. And personally, I think simple is important - because I think simple is most effective. (And that's not even getting into our inability to reform or effectively outreach. Like for instance, look how well the "war on drugs" is going...freaking heroin is making a comeback )

That's also not to say that there are some serious underlying issues. Mass shootings are perpetrated by men, in almost all cases. If they were being done by women, I'd imagine there would be some discussion about it.

Like wise, these types of killings typically tend to be done by white men (ages 18-30). I imagine if the majority of these killings were done by black people, hispanic people, or muslims we would have already banned guns..

but that's not even what I'm getting at..I think it's time we question why this is happening with this specific demographic..whether there are some underlying connections anywhere or cultural issues. It's been touched on slightly, but not enough, IMO.

Also, I don't mean to be confrontational with you. I get heated over this one, and I think you do too. Laughing Honestly, I agree with you 99% of time, it's just this one thing.. Wink



_________________
“Anyone point out that a Donald Trump anagram is ‘Lord Dampnut’”- Colin Mochrie


Last edited by mercfan3 on 06/15/16 10:24 pm; edited 2 times in total
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » Area 51 All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Page 5 of 8

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.17 © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Template by Vjacheslav Trushkin