Why? Man's Answer...

Dribble said:

I am not advocating taking guns away. I am advocating making it impossible for a gun to be inside a school. Simple really.

You will say..."that's impossible". No it isn't. We don't have guns on airplanes. We don't have guns in court houses. We start the process...we refine it every time a loophole is found...and we work towards the obvious

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/more-guns-do-not-stop-more-crimes-evidence-shows/

Click to expand...

"We" do "have guns on airplanes." "We" do "have guns in court houses."

"We" do have arms everywhere. What makes the ONLY difference is the self-responsibility of the arms bearer - PERIOD.

It's that SELF-RESPONSIBILITY factor which IS THE ISSUE.

And I hate to break Reality News to you snowflake, but self-responsibility is a totally INDIVIDUAL endeavor - it cannot be commanded, it cannot be legislated - no matter how many of you wannabe mommy girlymen band together and stomp your feet about it.

The less self-responsibility, the more carnage: "Simple really."

WoundedKnee said:

So I'm watching a hysterical shaved-head young uniformed person screaming into a microphone, "THIS ISN'T A MENTAL HEALTH ISSUE! THIS IS A GUN ISSUE! HE WOULDN'T HAVE KILLED SO MANY IF HE HAD A KNIFE!"

So, to her, clearly the issue is not mental health, but how many others an insane person can kill.

You can't make this shit up.

Click to expand...

It's not an either/or situation you stupid son of a whore.

Sean said:

All of those things happened in the UK too. Our kids read the same stuff, watch the same stuff, listen to the same stuff, have the same issues. Yet this shit doesn't happen in the UK. What could the difference possibly be?

Click to expand...

It's called "freedom", wannabe, something still-individual liberty-loving Brits brought with them to American shores in 1607.

Alas, 92 years later, homey limeys surrendered their individual liberty to full collective government authority over them: that's 319 years, today, of solid limey lemminghood, of wholesale socialism/progressivism conditioning its males to become as wanting of security and comfort as its females, no matter the cost to their actual individual manhood. Of course, that cost is Britain falling from perhaps the mightiest nation in the world at that time...

...to basically a bench warmer today. And if not for the Jews of London, Her Majesty would simply sit on a throne of just another of the world's shitholes.

Every socialist/progressive is a direct enemy to the Constitution for the United States of America; in your specific limey case, you are a direct foreign enemy to it. So, you only have yourself to blame for why America's framers purposely constituted every law-abiding American's NATURAL, INALIENABLE (above any government) right to keep and bear arms against socialist/progressive ENEMY pieces of human shit like you. Most excellent job, chap!

BobBalouski said:

It's called "freedom", wannabe, something still-individual liberty-loving Brits brought with them to American shores in 1607.

Alas, 92 years later, homey limeys surrendered their individual liberty to full collective government authority over them: that's 319 years, today, of solid limey lemminghood, of wholesale socialism/progressivism conditioning its males to become as wanting of security and comfort as its females, no matter the cost to their actual individual manhood. Of course, that cost is Britain falling from perhaps the mightiest nation in the world at that time...

...to basically a bench warmer today. And if not for the Jews of London, Her Majesty would simply sit on a throne of just another of the world's shitholes.

Every socialist/progressive is a direct enemy to the Constitution for the United States of America; in your specific limey case, you are a direct foreign enemy to it. So, you only have yourself to blame for why America's framers purposely constituted every law-abiding American's NATURAL, INALIENABLE (above any government) right to keep and bear arms against socialist/progressive ENEMY pieces of human shit like you. Most excellent job, chap!

Click to expand...

OH my God...you actually used the word "inalienable" correctly. You do learn. So...if you can learn that...why don't you learn easier things?

ChinoMoreno said:

school kids cannot get their hands on bomb making materials or have the know how to make bombs as easy as it is to buy a gun legally or illegally or get into their dad's gun closet

Click to expand...

LOL!

Yeah, RIGHT!

You probably have enough stuff under the sink and lavatory to blow up or gas God only know how many people.

The internet is a knowledgeable place if you ask the right questions.

On can even find out how to build machine guns from scratch with a small metal lathe and parts from a hardware store.

Thanks to the increase in reality shows and non entities like the Jenners and Kardasians, these American kids these days want to be famous rather than claim what they can do to improve the country. A culture of narcissism. And it is just getting worse.

Update stupid autocorrect on phone.

Good article.
My only criticism of it is that it paints an entire generation with the tar brush, for the actions of a few.

Call them snowflakes, mollicoddled or whatever you want, but "lacking in empathy" is something that I woukd never call Milenials. If you want to generalize, you can perhaps say that they are less self-absorbed, materialistic and shallow than Xers and boomers. .

nowisthetime said:

Thanks to the increase in reality shows and non entities like the Jenners and Kardasiams, these American kids these days want to be famous rather than claim want they can do to improve the country. A culture of narcissism. And it is just getting worse.

Click to expand...

Seriously? Who fucking raised them?

Dribble said:

I am not advocating taking guns away. I am advocating making it impossible for a gun to be inside a school. Simple really.

You will say..."that's impossible". No it isn't. We don't have guns on airplanes. We don't have guns in court houses. We start the process...we refine it every time a loophole is found...and we work towards the obvious

Click to expand...

Readers may note I've not advocated seizing firearms; that's just fucking impossible. Production, distribution, possession cannot be controlled in USA. But their appearance in public CAN be controlled. Be unauthorized, and caught with a firearm: heavy punishment. Be caught carrying on or near a school: capitol offense. You want to shoot in private: that's fine by me. You want to carry in public, then join the well-regulated militia. Don't go rogue.

Dribble said:

OH my God...you actually used the word "inalienable" correctly. You do learn. So...if you can learn that...why don't you learn easier things?

Click to expand...

Look in your mirror and ask yourself why you have such a control issue about the EQUALLY correct words "unalienable" and "inalienable", which mean EXACTLY the same thing...

...instead of dragging just more of your elementary shortcomings here?

Yw.

nowisthetime said:

Thanks to the increase in reality shows and non entities like the Jenners and Kardasiams, these American kids these days want to be famous rather than claim want they can do to improve the country. A culture of narcissism. And it is just getting worse.

Click to expand...

#PityTheDisabled ever heard of Liberia?

Why would such racist piece of shit malcontents moan so much about how evil "white" America is when their own proclaimed "homeland" is still there waiting for them to someday actually walk like "white" American freedom empowers them to talk?

I would most certainly pitch-in to help purchase banana boat passage back for every #PityTheDisabled tribe member on the GB.

Of course, once you got there, you'd truly find out what "privilege" actually means...

...and blowhards/wannabes never do well in reality situations like that.

BobBalouski said:

Look in your mirror and ask yourself why you have such a control issue about the EQUALLY correct words "unalienable" and "inalienable", which mean EXACTLY the same thing...

...instead of dragging just more of your elementary shortcomings here?

Yw.

Click to expand...

Internet conflagrations regarding the use of flammable vs inflammable always amuse me.

Que said:

Internet conflagrations regarding the use of flammable vs inflammable always amuse me.

Click to expand...

Beware prefix nazis running loose. Meanwhile, how many syllables in the word 'unionized'?

Citizen: 3
Chemist: 4

If you aren't part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

Dribble said:

It is the same answer because he is correct.

Let's look at it from a different perspective...maybe one you can understand...Hypothetical... Let's say you have a problem drinking alcohol. If you never put yourself in the situation of where alcohol is...how can you use? It doesn't just magically appear. No using people...no using places. Presto...

Click to expand...

You mean like in prison where no alcohol is available.

Dribble said:

I am not advocating taking guns away. I am advocating making it impossible for a gun to be inside a school. Simple really.

You will say..."that's impossible". No it isn't. We don't have guns on airplanes. We don't have guns in court houses. We start the process...we refine it every time a loophole is found...and we work towards the obvious

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/more-guns-do-not-stop-more-crimes-evidence-shows/

Click to expand...

Someone can always get a gun into a school or an airplane. TSA is forever failing to find guns run through their system as a test. As pointed out in The Seven Samurai, whenever you build a defense, there must be a gap in it it order to let the enemy in.

BobBalouski said:

IN FACT, alcohol plays the key role in far, far more deaths of children in America than guns - as it does everywhere else in the world, too.

Your "statement" is wholly void.

Click to expand...

That doesn’t void my point it reinforces it. Alcohol is a clear example of something that is generally safe in the hands of responsible adults but can cause harm in the wrong hands or circumstances. So it is regulated and the modest constraints put on it are widely accepted as a reasonable and acceptable infringement on individual freedoms.

If it were being used as a weapon the government would look at additional control measures. Not prohibition....simply a rationale balance.

The fact that some things - be they alcohol, tobacco, smog or stress - cause more deaths than guns has nothing whatsoever to do with gun control.

policywank said:

That doesn’t void my point it reinforces it. Alcohol is a clear example of something that is generally safe in the hands of responsible adults but can cause harm in the wrong hands or circumstances. So it is regulated and the modest constraints put on it are widely accepted as a reasonable and acceptable infringement on individual freedoms.

If it were being used as a weapon the government would look at additional control measures. Not prohibition....simply a rationale balance.

The fact that some things - be they alcohol, tobacco, smog or stress - cause more deaths than guns has nothing whatsoever to do with gun control.

Click to expand...

You're the butter knife in the drawer, eh?

Your "regulated" points re alcohol use apply just as "regulated" equally to gun use, yet alcohol use still abuses, injures and kills scores and scores more than gun use.

So, why aren't you calling for just as much more alcohol "control" as you are calling for more gun "control"?

policywank said:

That doesn’t void my point it reinforces it. Alcohol is a clear example of something that is generally safe in the hands of responsible adults but can cause harm in the wrong hands or circumstances. So it is regulated and the modest constraints put on it are widely accepted as a reasonable and acceptable infringement on individual freedoms.

If it were being used as a weapon the government would look at additional control measures. Not prohibition....simply a rationale balance.

The fact that some things - be they alcohol, tobacco, smog or stress - cause more deaths than guns has nothing whatsoever to do with gun control.

Click to expand...

Guns are always safe in the hands of responsible adults. In order to harm anyone you have to either be irresponsible with the use of a gun or you have to use one with malice aforethought.

Alcohol in the hands of "responsible" adults is specifically designed to lower inhibitions which by definition makes one *less* responsible.

Sean said:

All of those things happened in the UK too. Our kids read the same stuff, watch the same stuff, listen to the same stuff, have the same issues. Yet this shit doesn't happen in the UK. What could the difference possibly be?

Click to expand...

Same in Canada. I guess we don’t have any mental illness. What else could it be?

Que said:

Guns are always safe in the hands of responsible adults. In order to harm anyone you have to either be irresponsible with the use of a gun or you have to use one with malice aforethought.

Alcohol in the hands of "responsible" adults is specifically designed to lower inhibitions which by definition makes one *less* responsible.

Click to expand...

Yes, like dick Cheney.

silver gurl said:

Same in Canada. I guess we don’t have any mental illness. What else could it be?

Click to expand...

Using maple syrup instead of light oil to lube firearms. The mechanisms and barrels get gummed up and won't fire. It's a cultural thing. Go Canada!

FGB said:

LOL!

Yeah, RIGHT!

You probably have enough stuff under the sink and lavatory to blow up or gas God only know how many people.

The internet is a knowledgeable place if you ask the right questions.

On can even find out how to build machine guns from scratch with a small metal lathe and parts from a hardware store.

Click to expand...

MacGyver can build one using nothing more than a paper clip and a post-it note!

BobBalouski said:

You're the butter knife in the drawer, eh?

Your "regulated" points re alcohol use apply just as "regulated" equally to gun use, yet alcohol use still abuses, injures and kills scores and scores more than gun use.

So, why aren't you calling for just as much more alcohol "control" as you are calling for more gun "control"?

Click to expand...

Alcohol causes fewer problems than it would if wasn’t regulated at all. Absolute prohibition doesn’t work and no regulation at all would allow 5 year olds to buy scotch. Everything is a balance aimed at harm reduction - the fact that harm elimination isn’t achieved doesn’t mean regulation isn’t achieving a valid objective.

If you are trying to argue regulation doesn’t work the only relevant reference point is how many alcohol related deaths there would be if it wasn’t regulated. Your ridiculous argument is like saying speed limits don’t work because more people die in traffic accidents (even though speed is regulated) than they do in badger maulings (badgers are not regulated). They have nothing to do with each other.

Whether any given rule or regulation is effective, desirable or represents an acceptable trade-off of personal freedom is always debatable. Hiding behind juvenile insults and spurious logic isn’t debate.

The point once again for the slow of learning isn’t that alcohol regulation is ideal or perfectly effective. The point is that we accept its basic premise as a means of harm reduction. The fact that uncle Billy drunk himself into an early grave is no reason to make tequila shots available in primary school. We all get that. We all know regulation isn’t perfect but it is better than nothing.

Why is it so impossible to even entertain the possibility that the same logic applies to guns?

Que said:

Guns are always safe in the hands of responsible adults. In order to harm anyone you have to either be irresponsible with the use of a gun or you have to use one with malice aforethought.

Alcohol in the hands of "responsible" adults is specifically designed to lower inhibitions which by definition makes one *less* responsible.

Click to expand...

Once again I am not trying to equate alcohol directly with guns. I am making the point that we already accept the premise of the regulation of dangerous things.

In this context regulation doesn’t mean elimination. It means common sense measured to maximize the prospect that guns do stay in the hands of responsible adults.

If you have a gun at home you take reasonable measures to keep it out of the hands of kids right? Why is it so inconceivable that society take measures to keep guns out of the hands of mentally unstable people?

If you teach your kid how to handle a gun you put parameters around him/her until you know they get it right? Why is a simple background check of an angry young man wanting to buy an assault rifle too much to even discuss?

A law enforcement source briefed on the investigation told CNN that Cruz had obtained at least 10 firearms, all of them rifles.

Investigators are trying to track the purchases, which Cruz appears to have made in the past year or so, the source said.


Cruz bought two weapons from Gun World of South Florida in Deerfield Beach, said Kim Waltuch, the store's CEO. She would not provide details on the types of guns he purchased or on the time frame..."


An attorney representing the gun store’s owners told the Miami Herald that “no red flags were raised” when Cruz completed the purchase. As part of that process, Cruz had to indicate on a government form whether he had ever been adjudicated or institutionalized for mental illness.


The suspect purchased another two weapons at Gun World of South Florida in Deerfield Beach, according to CNN.


No infringement, no matter who will die ?

The red flag laws act as a sort of timeout so someone in psychological distress can get counseling while their fitness to possess a gun is evaluated, said Laura Cutilletta, legal director of the Giffords Law Center.

"It's a way to allow for temporary removal of firearms in a situation just like this: where somebody has made threats, where they have been expelled from school because of those threats, they're in counseling, and parents or the school or whoever it is understands that this person poses a threat," she said.

Many gun-rights activists oppose the laws. They say they can be used to unfairly take away rights from people who have not been convicted of crimes or professionally evaluated for mental illness.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...ool-shooting-nikolas-cruz-20180218-story.html