Shooting at Florida School, Shooter IS in custody. - Sensationalist Headlines

[QUOTE=thejjokerr;53140652]Regarding the comic you posted, it would be a lot better analogy if the cake had the potential to kill lots of people and if other countries in the world has stricter cake laws to begin with, not causing this discussion in the first place.[/QUOTE] do you have any idea what a metaphor is? the cake here is a euphemism for gun rights, not murder

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53139701]Don't be frustrated at conservatives. Be frustrated at conservative/Republican [I]lawmakers[/I]. Most politicians are bought & paid for, but Republicans are definitely owned by far worse interests than Democrats. The social programs we have are pretty shit (thanks in large part to those lawmakers) and it would be useless to throw money at them without extreme reforms. But it's not hard to imagine what kinds of new programs could help keep places like Detroit from bottoming out. It will be a long time before Detroit is healed, but as ilikecorn said, there's plenty we can do to keep people there from feeling like they have to turn to crime to put food on the table.[/QUOTE] Who put those dirty, corrupt politicians in power in the first place? I'll tell you who: people who prioritise gun rights over everything else to the extent that they're willing to vote for someone whose platform otherwise completely contradicts what they want in a representative.

[QUOTE=thejjokerr;53140682]Yeah but a cake is not designed to kill/destroy, therefor I found the euphemism a bit poorly thought of? Is the connection between a thing made to destroy and the actual act of destroying so far fetched for you you're not even seeing it? Or are you just being condescending, because you're salty about your (imo) dumb rights being taken away from yourself? I'm sorry this is my first time in a gun discussion, because we don't have any school shootings here.[/QUOTE] The comic is representative of the topic of compromise in the context of gun control, its not hard. Also yet again with this condescending attitude and blatant insulting that keeps showing up, cause somehow people think talking down to others while acting like a total cock is gonna make anyone want to listen to what you're saying.

[QUOTE=thejjokerr;53140682]Yeah but a cake is not designed to kill/destroy, therefor I found the euphemism a bit poorly thought of? Is the connection between a thing made to destroy and the actual act of destroying so far fetched for you you're not even seeing it? Or are you just being condescending, because you're salty about your (imo) dumb rights being taken away from yourself? I'm sorry this is my first time in a gun discussion, because we don't have any school shootings here.[/QUOTE] you're missing the whole point of the euphemism. it's not that I want to eat my whole gun, it's that gun owners collectively are tired of being accused of not compromising when we've been giving up our rights with no benefit whatsoever to us for decades. you want to compromise? how about removing short barreled rifles and shotguns, suppressors, and smoothbore pistols from the NFA registry, repealing the hughes amendment, and maybe enact a sensible safe storage law (and by sensible I mean not fucking $1000 safes that everyone keeps saying should be required) instead of going "oh you know that gun you've had for the past decade that's never been pointed at anyone? the one that you use to keep a steady supply of game on your table? give it to us or you're going to jail."

[QUOTE=thejjokerr;53140706]Sorry man, you're right, I got a bit salty after this first condescending attitude, which wore off on me. No excuse though, I should've kept my cool and just keep on arguing and to be fair I generally hate text-to-text discussions because there's no way to find out with what emotion anyone is saying anything. For example I found your post ("its not hard") condescending as well. Anyways, yes I understand it's a euphemism, but I'm thinking I haven't used them enough to even comment further about this subject, because what I'm saying doesn't seem to matter in any way. Yeah sorry man, I see I'm a bit unclear and I guess I think of euphemisms incorrectly. I thought you couldn't just apply anything as a replacement subject if it doesn't have at least some relation to the original subject. Like for example: "in 1945 the US gave 2 cakes to Japan and ended a war. From then on everybody started making cakes to try and prevent wars, but now recently they want everyone to stop making cakes!" would seem pretty silly to me. But all in all, let's just end this, because I'm wrong here.[/QUOTE] It's alright. If you look up for example what assault weapon bans are, they just target certain grips and stocks. It doesn't do anything to solve the problem. [url]http://www.vpc.org/studies/awaconc.htm[/url] Violence Prevention Center even said they're using public confusion over looks to try and get them banned, because they REALLY want to ban handguns. (This page is old, before DC vs Heller.) So by banning "Assault Weapons" it's a stepping stone to going after handguns. I'm sorry if I came off like a dick. I've given this argument so many times across different sites, eventually it's hard for me because I have to hunt down a ton of articles, and write a ton of paragraphs each time.

[QUOTE=Toybasher;53140585]The fact they don't even know what they're talking about reinforces the notion they shouldn't be making laws as knee-jerk reaction.[/QUOTE] Ugh, stupid politicians, it's a magazine not a clip! Sheeesh!

[QUOTE=nox;53140795]Ugh, stupid politicians, it's a magazine not a clip! Sheeesh![/QUOTE] I can excuse that kind of mistake, but if you're gonna try to ban barrel shrouds you should at least know that it's not a "shoulder thing that goes up"

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53139821]You don't know what conservatism means.[/QUOTE] The problem here is that when you say conservative, you mean an actual, rational conservative who has reasonable stances. In America, most people who say the word "conservative" to describe somebody's politics don't mean conservative. Die-hard supporters of the GOP who call themselves conservative don't mean conservative. Conservatism as a concept in the US has become synonymous with reactionism to the point where identifying yourself as conservative with no heavy qualification will make people believe that you are either alt-right or somebody who lets fox news do their thinking. And then, on the other side, if you call yourself a liberal you get lumped in with fucking pants-on-head anti-vaxxers, people who thought Clinton was a good person and a good candidate, people who want to completely abolish firearm ownership, and hippies. You know, people who watch buzzfeed, love satan, rant about "superfoods", unironically want to bring back segregation, and think that buying "organic" is in any way healthy. Just for kicks, tell anyone on either side you disagree with them and they'll usually assume that you are a member of [other party] and that you hunt immigrants for sport/officiate forced gay black inter-species marriages, because it's a two party system and there's no room for individual thought. Anything less than party politicking pseudo-pragmatism is naïveté. Add 1 heap stupid misunderstandings, 3 parts failure to accept or understand anything different, don't even attempt to combine because that shit's like francium and water, and grill over a roaring dumpster fire for the foreseeable future. this shit will never fucking end. oh, and no matter what side anyone takes, supporting stupid bullshit half measures like banning "'assault-style' weapons with the tactical grips and the rails and the barrel shrouds that make them scary 'military-style' baby-killing devices" is fucking retarded and will never, ever work.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;53140001]Trump is blaming the Democrats for not passing gun control under Obama [media]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/965009332042596352[/media][/QUOTE] Students at Stoneman Douglas are telling trump to shut the fuck up [media]https://twitter.com/mattdpearce/status/965250240805666816[/media] Trump really is a president of unity

[QUOTE=Lambeth;53141132]Students at Stoneman Douglas are telling trump to shut the fuck up [media]https://twitter.com/mattdpearce/status/965250240805666816[/media] Trump really is a president of unity[/QUOTE] I was waiting for the usual suspects to use this opportunity to attack the FBI but I didn't expect it to be the President jesus christ.

I thought I was used to Trump's usual bullshit but implying the FBI was too busy with the Russia investigation to go after the kid is a new low.

[QUOTE=Pitchfork;53140836]The problem here is that when you say conservative, you mean an actual, rational conservative who has reasonable stances. In America, most people who say the word "conservative" to describe somebody's politics don't mean conservative. Die-hard supporters of the GOP who call themselves conservative don't mean conservative. Conservatism as a concept in the US has become synonymous with reactionism to the point where identifying yourself as conservative with no heavy qualification will make people believe that you are either alt-right or somebody who lets fox news do their thinking.[/QUOTE] It's difficult to see how Donald Trump isn't a reflection of the GOP is as a whole. Which is actually really common if you look how elections generally swing over the years. The party in power will generally do worse at the following election. [QUOTE]And then, on the other side, if you call yourself a liberal you get lumped in with fucking pants-on-head anti-vaxxers, people who thought Clinton was a good person and a good candidate, people who want to completely abolish firearm ownership, and hippies. You know, people who watch buzzfeed, love satan, rant about "superfoods", unironically want to bring back segregation, and think that buying "organic" is in any way healthy.[/QUOTE] This is changing with Bernie Sanders and other leftie politicians running for office. I think the US political system has been running on stereotypes for a while. like the stereotype of democrats is that they're weak on immigration but obama [URL="https://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/08/trump-deportations-behind-obama-levels-241420"]deported[/URL] a hell of a lot of people.

[QUOTE=nox;53140795]Ugh, stupid politicians, it's a magazine not a clip! Sheeesh![/QUOTE] Why should I trust someone to write effective legislation if they show themselves to be ignorant of the subject they're writing legislation for?

[QUOTE=RainbowStalin;53141287]I thought I was used to Trump's usual bullshit but implying the FBI was too busy with the Russia investigation to go after the kid is a new low.[/QUOTE] Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if he attacked one of the victims for speaking out against him. Not surprised at all.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;53141132]Students at Stoneman Douglas are telling trump to shut the fuck up [media]https://twitter.com/mattdpearce/status/965250240805666816[/media] Trump really is a president of unity[/QUOTE] [URL="https://www.axios.com/parkland-student-to-trump-are-you-kidding-me-you-sicken-me-1518971395-796104eb-8166-4fb3-938d-c9765d572542.html"]There's more[/URL]: [MEDIA]https://twitter.com/axios/status/965262175433641985[/MEDIA] [MEDIA]https://twitter.com/axios/status/965266015755042816[/MEDIA]

[QUOTE=Psychokitten;53141319]Why should I trust someone to write effective legislation if they show themselves to be ignorant of the subject they're writing legislation for?[/QUOTE] Sure you should expect at least a certain understanding of their functions but calling someone out for not knowing what a buffer tube or a forward assist is is just pedantic as fuck.

[QUOTE=nox;53141635]Sure you should expect at least a certain understanding of their functions but calling someone out for not knowing what a buffer tube or a forward assist is is just pedantic as fuck.[/QUOTE] Not when you're writing legislation about that shit, you should absolutely know.

[QUOTE=AaronM202;53141646]Not when you're writing legislation about that shit, you should absolutely know.[/QUOTE] I think your expectations for lawmakers is excessively high. Someone who has decided they want to take action on some issue is going to spend time studying statistics on crime, looking at various commonly used firearms and their functions, the causes of shootings, they're not going to learn to disassemble an AR blindfolded. Knowing the difference between a clip and a mag has literally zero effect on your ability to understand causes and find solutions for these kind of problems.

[QUOTE=nox;53141692]I think your expectations for lawmakers is excessively high. Someone who has decided they want to take action on some issue is going to spend time studying statistics on crime, looking at various commonly used firearms and their functions, the causes of shootings, they're not going to learn to disassemble an AR blindfolded. Knowing the difference between a clip and a mag has literally zero effect on your ability to understand causes and find solutions for these kind of problems.[/QUOTE] banning safety features that you can't even point to because you think they sound scary is stupid.

[QUOTE=butre;53141799]banning safety features that you can't even point to because you think they sound scary is stupid.[/QUOTE] I agree on that. I'm talking more in terms of broad gun legislation, it's unfeasible to know everything. But yeah if you don't know what the accessory does then you shouldn't have a voice in saying whether that particular accessory should be banned, but at the same time I give legislators a pass for calling an ar-15 a '30mm Bushmaster carbine' or not knowing a bump stock can be made out of a stick and a string.

I'm tired of hearing this "what do we get in return" argument from gun owners. Our country is unique for its gun violence and the problem is escalating every year, it seems. I work at a school, and all I heard on Friday in the teacher's lounge was how fucked we are in the event of an active shooter. To preserve the status quo is a detriment to the life and safety of everyone. When we passed reforms to the espionage system after 9/11, individual rights were exchanged for collective security. When we pass emissions control regulations, private industry rights were exchanged for public health and long-term security. Sometimes, the need to address a national crisis outweighs the individual wants of (possibly many) individual people. It's not a popular truth, but that's just how the world works. I'm not even anti-gun. I actually find them fascinating and hope we can find a way to keep them accessible to most of the public- I'd like to own one in the next few years. If that means we need alternative solutions like improving access to psychological care, reforming public schools to protect students from bullying and treat them more like humans than legal liabilities, implementing a national registry and linking it to an intelligence community-lead effort to identify mass shooting threats before they happen (akin to anti-terrorism efforts already in place), et cetera, then I'm all for it. But at the same time, it seems like the same people who are "pro gun rights" that I've seen on Facebook and other sites are the ones calling people "special snow flakes" for asking for psychological care and protesting bullying. I guess what I'm trying to say is that if you're going to be part of the "no restriction of rights" crowd, then you have a moral obligation to be part of the alternative solution crowd. The public doesn't owe you anything for fighting for its own safety.

[QUOTE=Sega Saturn;53141851]I'm tired of hearing this "what do we get in return" argument from gun owners. Our country is unique for its gun violence and the problem is escalating every year, it seems. I work at a school, and all I heard on Friday in the teacher's lounge was how fucked we are in the event of an active shooter. To preserve the status quo is a detriment to the life and safety of everyone. When we passed reforms to the espionage system after 9/11, individual rights were exchanged for collective security. When we pass emissions control regulations, private industry rights were exchanged for public health and long-term security. Sometimes, the need to address a national crisis outweighs the individual wants of (possibly many) individual people. It's not a popular truth, but that's just how the world works. I'm not even anti-gun. I actually find them fascinating and hope we can find a way to keep them accessible to most of the public- I'd like to own one in the next few years. If that means we need alternative solutions like improving access to psychological care, reforming public schools to protect students from bullying and treat them more like humans than legal liabilities, implementing a national registry and linking it to an intelligence community-lead effort to identify mass shooting threats before they happen (akin to anti-terrorism efforts already in place), et cetera, then I'm all for it. But at the same time, it seems like the same people who are "pro gun rights" that I've seen on Facebook and other sites are the ones calling people "special snow flakes" for asking for psychological care and protesting bullying. I guess what I'm trying to say is that if you're going to be part of the "no restriction of rights" crowd, then you have a moral obligation to be part of the alternative solution crowd. The public doesn't owe you anything for fighting for its own safety.[/QUOTE] Then don't bitch because people won't "compromise" and instead fight you tooth and nail. You can't keep taking from people without them expecting something in return.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53141862]This. I use it as a metric to find out those who aren't capable of reading research and statistics, not as a metric in favor of one side or another.[/QUOTE] "People who aren't capable of reading research and statistics" accurately describes the vast majority of voters on both sides of the isle. As long as politicians can keep tricking them into thinking public policy is a zero-sum game, where any action to address the public safety issue is automatically a loss for gun owners, we'll keep on seeing the same toxic comments being made about "special snowflake liberals." Most conservatives I've known in real life (family, coworkers, classmates, etc) are like this. Hell, a user above me just described my position as bitching and accused me of offering nothing in return, not realizing that I want to protect gun rights and I'm calling for alternative solutions. It's like they see "something needs to be done" and their brain gets shut off in favor of "oh, just another liberal snowflake bitching away..." But that isn't even the point. You can't address mass murder in the US by simply re-framing the issue so that gun owners are the [I]real[/I] victims. You can't claim that an alternative solution is needed and then vote for people who proudly declare that they'll block every solution. Everyone is a victim of this mess, not just the people dying.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53141899]I'd happily support any candidate that shared my views, be they blue or red. But since the red is entirely content on "everything's fine here" and the blue is entirely content saying "But why do you NEEEEEEEED this", then I don't actually get to vote for my views, now do I?[/QUOTE] Exactly, and it's a terrible situation. If I were a member of the NRA, I'd be contacting them about supporting mental health initiatives and school reform. I'd also be looking for ways to contribute or simply show support for public advocates who might lobby on my behalf, as opposed to politicians. This is all assuming that you care enough about the issue to actually want to do something about it, and aren't pointing out the political situation as an excuse to not do anything. I suspect that many gun owners are doing exactly this for the sake of convenience.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53141936]I wouldn't. Because the NRA is absolutely horseshit. Don't get it twisted, i'm willing to bet an organization like GOA would totally go for it, but the NRA is concerned with one thing: Old dudes, and their "durr rifus". They legit do not give a flying fuck about anything that isn't that demographic.[/QUOTE] Ah, I understand. But it's clear that you understand my point, and it's also clear that you're not part of the problem I was describing. I wish that people in general would be more like you.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53141950]There are a lot of gun owners like me. Its just we're in a rock and a hard place. On the one hand we can vote for the party that isn't going to touch our guns (but isn't going to do shit else), or we can vote for the party that the INSTANT a shooting occurs, goes back to its rhetoric of "we must ban guns, we must register the guns we don't ban, we must tax and license them in a way that only the rich can afford". Its a no win situation, and its fucking horseshit.[/QUOTE] Take over the party that wants to ban guns then. If there are a lot of people that think like you it should be pretty easy to get elected.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53141975]"a lot of gun owners" isn't enough to turn the tide of a party that's been entrenched in "ban every black rifle with a pistol grip" since the 90's, and has been preaching that RAMPANTLY after every shooting. To the point that its impossible to debate in some instances, with a democrat, in regards to gun control. We'd need a new political party, called the "get shit done and don't do useless bullshit" party. Its platform is: Improving healthcare and expanding healthcare to all. Rebuilding our network of mental health professionals, to the point that our nation will become the bleeding edge of mental health research and treatment, properly funding our schools (without adding guns to said schools), properly staffing our schools, eventually leading our our education system becoming the envy of the world, expanding our social safety nets and reforming them, to the point that they're entirely accessible yet extremely difficult to abuse. A party focused on actual effects of laws, with "evidence based" lawmaking. I'd vote for that in a heartbeat.[/QUOTE] You don't need to make a whole new political party for that if you've got the bones for one already available to you. Hell, a number of your goals even line up with the democratic party platform already. If you live in a red state outside of a major metro area, you're in prime position to hijack the infrastructure the party has to offer. This is already being done in [URL="https://www.thenation.com/article/alaskas-lesson-left/"]Alaska[/URL] and a handful of other states.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53142019]I live in an urban area in the reddest state in the union. The odds of hijacking the party are slim, and running for public office is like offering your balls up to be kicked repeatedly. I'll stick to medicine.[/QUOTE] It happened in Alabama! be the change you want to see in the world!

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53142039]I'm a little young still (26). I'll get some more life experience before I have the audacity to say "i'm qualified to represent x amount of people's interests". Its a thought that's crossed my mind before, but I want to actually do that shit right, not just jump in and "lol vote for me cause i'm a hip kid with hip ideals".[/QUOTE] Kriess-Tomkins was 23 when he started campaigning. Definitely check out that The Nation article if you've even toyed with the idea of running.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53142089]Its not a matter of age, its a matter of life experience and maturity. I do not feel that I've got enough of either, and the field i'm working in grants those things very, very quickly. Maybe after a few years of working i'll go for it, but I just don't feel comfortable doing it now.[/QUOTE] Who was the guy here who ran for public office? He was young, I think he was a communist or something. I believe he was arrested.