Another gunman, another elementary school

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm all for stricter gun laws, but that's only part of the solution -- and frankly -- the easier part of the solution. For starters, we need to step up and clamp down on the rampant cyberbullying that takes place -- cyberbullying that causes too many kids to kill themselves or to kill innocent people. We also need to boycott Hollywood and its glorification of violence -- a glorification that enriches media (i.e. film, TV and music) executives while putting the idea into young people's minds that it's okay or cool to go on shooting rampages. Finally, we need to find ways that support and strengthen families. No, I'm not talking about "traditional family values" or anything like that. I'm talking about an environment in which young people have healthy adult parents or mentors who instill them a sense of self-worth or confidence -- a sense of purpose in life.

No it's not "easier" because people keep voting Republicans into office who won't pass common sense gun laws. These Republican members of Congress are indebted to the NRA.
And, in case it hasn't dawned on you, Republicans are also not willing to pay for mental heath care, community efforts to end cyber-bullying, or social programs to help struggling parents.

We can't do what you suggest until Republicans are voted out.

The PP's valid point is that politics alone will not solve the problem of gun violence.

Well, since "Thoughts and Prayers" haven't worked at all for the last 20 years, maybe Republicans should try to pass a bill to limit sales of assault rilfes.

Extending sympathy and prayers to grieving families of dead children is not intended to stop school shootings. It's not supposed "to work" to stop the shootings. And you know it.

Extending sympathy is a common thing to do, and prayers is what religious people do in troubling times.

BS. Don't be so naive. Politicians say "thoughts and prayers" because it's enough for their pathetic constituents, who are all to content to accept those toothless words over effective policies to end gun violence.

Condolences and prayers are NOT a policy. Stop conflating - stop with the pretending.

No one is saying they're the same. I'm saying that Republican voters are satisfied with thoughts and prayers from their politicians, and perfectly content to have Republican politicians do absolutely NOTHING policy-wise to prevent hundreds of kids being slaughtered by assault rifles legally purchased. Perfectly content, otherwise, why would they continue to vote for them?

That is false.

Republicans believe in added security measures at schools, but democrats oppose added security. Republicans often also advocate having a nuclear family, attending church or other place of worship, more consequences for felonious juvenile crimes, and a sense of personal responsibility for one's actions.

Others, by contrast, often advocate "dismantling the nuclear family," atheism, lesser punishments for felonious behavior, and blaming others or society as an external locus of control for their bad acts.

This is utter and complete BS. This is more GOP propaganda. Those GOP politicians don't care about your kids, your family, your job, crime, God, or anything but their own power. And their F-ing guns. But you lap their BS stories up like the rube you are.

A belief or value isn't "propoganda." My beliefs and values are not propaganda. Get a dictionary.

Perhaps it’s time to reevaluate your “values” if safeguarding children isn’t at the top? And maybe less time watching Fox News and clutching pearls about CRT and BLM boogeymen.

I believe in crime deterrents, security measures, and police. To safeguard kids. How many times do I have to repeat. Can you not read?

READ!

P.s. - I don't watch Fox News, OANN, or Newsmax. Nice try. I just have common freaking sense!

Nope. I will post this again since you're being willfully obtuse, and digging down.

To respond to your previous post:

"That is false.

Republicans believe in added security measures at schools, but democrats oppose added security. THERE WERE ARMED POLICE OFFICERS CHASING THE SHOOTER WHO WERE NOT ABLE TO STOP HIM FROM KILLING 20 PEOPLE.

Republicans often also advocate having a nuclear family, Having a nuclear family doesn't prevent gun violence. Familicide is all-too-common. It's higher than random violence for whites, and is more often committed in white families. https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/fvs03.pdf

attending church or other place of worship, Study after study debunks the oft-cited claim that the religious are more moralistic, generous, or altruistic. https://theconversation.com/are-religious-people-more-moral-84560

more consequences for felonious juvenile crimes, There is bipartisan support for juvenile crime support, but there are key differences in approach. Perhaps the GOP could also be willing to have better conversations. You cannot blame this on one party. https://apnews.com/article/crime-juvenile-crime-b447107b606dc6cd15339e5a0bda32b0

and a sense of personal responsibility for one's actions. You can't take personal responsibility when you are dead by police or by your own hand.

Others, by contrast, often advocate "dismantling the nuclear family," atheism, lesser punishments for felonious behavior, and blaming others or society as an external locus of control for their bad acts."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where did he get the money to purchase these weapons? They are not cheap. That AR-15 was almost $2K.

If he used a newly opened credit card, that should be a major red flag. In fact, there should probably be a strict restriction on using new lines of credit to purchase firearms and ammo. Probably a very high indication of using the weapon for suicide or a crime.

The gun shop should have been more vigilant. They have the victims' blood on their hand because they wanted a quick buck. Same goes for the NRA and their Republican enablers.

You’re saying it is the business owners responsibility to do more than is required by law to protect the potential future victims of their customers?

Sure how the families are holding them accountable with civil suits.

Good luck with that. GW Buch snd his GOP-controlled Congress gave the gun manufacturers and dealers virtual blanket immunity from liability in 2005.

[Anonymous]

Beto O'Rourke is my new hero!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Beto O'Rourke is my new hero!

What'd he do?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Beto O'Rourke is my new hero!

What'd he do?

Pissed away millions of dollars on a race he couldn’t win against Ted Cruz? Money that could have gone to winnable races? Or something else?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where did he get the money to purchase these weapons? They are not cheap. That AR-15 was almost $2K.

If he used a newly opened credit card, that should be a major red flag. In fact, there should probably be a strict restriction on using new lines of credit to purchase firearms and ammo. Probably a very high indication of using the weapon for suicide or a crime.

The gun shop should have been more vigilant. They have the victims' blood on their hand because they wanted a quick buck. Same goes for the NRA and their Republican enablers.

You’re saying it is the business owners responsibility to do more than is required by law to protect the potential future victims of their customers?

Sure how the families are holding them accountable with civil suits.

Good luck with that. GW Buch snd his GOP-controlled Congress gave the gun manufacturers and dealers virtual blanket immunity from liability in 2005.

The Sandy Hook families succeeded in winning a $73 million settlement against Remington Arms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Beto O'Rourke is my new hero!

What'd he do?

He's running for governor of TX on a gun control platform. He's been especially focused on it since the El Paso shooting, which took place while he was running for president.

I always thought he might be throwing away his future political chances, especially in Texas, with that move, but maybe he was just ahead of the curve.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where did he get the money to purchase these weapons? They are not cheap. That AR-15 was almost $2K.

If he used a newly opened credit card, that should be a major red flag. In fact, there should probably be a strict restriction on using new lines of credit to purchase firearms and ammo. Probably a very high indication of using the weapon for suicide or a crime.

The gun shop should have been more vigilant. They have the victims' blood on their hand because they wanted a quick buck. Same goes for the NRA and their Republican enablers.

You’re saying it is the business owners responsibility to do more than is required by law to protect the potential future victims of their customers?

Sure how the families are holding them accountable with civil suits.

Good luck with that. GW Buch snd his GOP-controlled Congress gave the gun manufacturers and dealers virtual blanket immunity from liability in 2005.

The Sandy Hook families succeeded in winning a $73 million settlement against Remington Arms.

Extremely limited use of a singular loophole existing under Connecticut law that took years of litigation against a consortium of insurance companies that provided coverage to Remington.

[Anonymous]

It's less saying NO guns ever. It's saying if you want a gun you need prove you are responsible enough to own one. This way, you make it harder for access unless you are truly serious about gun ownership and the nut jobs who really love them still can actually get em.

This means you need to learn to shoot, take and pass a course on safety and protocols (ie process like getting your drivers license!)

It means you have to need to pass a background check that you're not a felon and also take a battery of tests to ensure you are mentally stable enough to be responsible to own.

What they ought to do is add another layer for security: fees/penalties for crimes using the weapon. So if a kid accidentally uses it to kill someone or if someone uses your weapon to kill someone else, etc. you're on the hook.

Personally I would be much more at ease if above was the change. I think it's unrealistic clearing out what's already on the streets and I also don't think gun lobby/politically we will ever agree to a outright banning of legit gun ownership. Making it hard to get is best case scenario.

It's the conceal and carry law is what is going to kill us all!!!!

[Anonymous]

A total gun ban isn’t happening in our lifetime, so just forget it.

A few things I think would be beneficial:

1) No personal sales of assault rifles/automatic weapons
2) Increase age to purchase any gun for personal use to >21
3) No social media for those under 18. Perhaps the companies can ban/screen, but parents will ultimately have to monitor this to ensure compliance

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's less saying NO guns ever. It's saying if you want a gun you need prove you are responsible enough to own one. This way, you make it harder for access unless you are truly serious about gun ownership and the nut jobs who really love them still can actually get em.

This means you need to learn to shoot, take and pass a course on safety and protocols (ie process like getting your drivers license!)

It means you have to need to pass a background check that you're not a felon and also take a battery of tests to ensure you are mentally stable enough to be responsible to own.

What they ought to do is add another layer for security: fees/penalties for crimes using the weapon. So if a kid accidentally uses it to kill someone or if someone uses your weapon to kill someone else, etc. you're on the hook.

Personally I would be much more at ease if above was the change. I think it's unrealistic clearing out what's already on the streets and I also don't think gun lobby/politically we will ever agree to a outright banning of legit gun ownership. Making it hard to get is best case scenario.

It's the conceal and carry law is what is going to kill us all!!!!

Remember the shooting (unfortunately I can't keep all of them straight ) about the open carry guy who murdered people on the street right after people called 911 to report him?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where did he get the money to purchase these weapons? They are not cheap. That AR-15 was almost $2K.

If he used a newly opened credit card, that should be a major red flag. In fact, there should probably be a strict restriction on using new lines of credit to purchase firearms and ammo. Probably a very high indication of using the weapon for suicide or a crime.

The gun shop should have been more vigilant. They have the victims' blood on their hand because they wanted a quick buck. Same goes for the NRA and their Republican enablers.

Gun shop ethics. Good one!

as far as investigators reported this morning, there were no flags on this shooter. He seems to have made an easy simple & legal purchase of a weapon of mass murder.

He had just turned 18. Not much a chance to accumulate any red flags.

Someone who just turned 18 buying two AR15s (approx. $4000), a large capacity magazine and 375 bullets is a pretty major red flag. But I guess that’s just me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's less saying NO guns ever. It's saying if you want a gun you need prove you are responsible enough to own one. This way, you make it harder for access unless you are truly serious about gun ownership and the nut jobs who really love them still can actually get em.

This means you need to learn to shoot, take and pass a course on safety and protocols (ie process like getting your drivers license!)

It means you have to need to pass a background check that you're not a felon and also take a battery of tests to ensure you are mentally stable enough to be responsible to own.

What they ought to do is add another layer for security: fees/penalties for crimes using the weapon. So if a kid accidentally uses it to kill someone or if someone uses your weapon to kill someone else, etc. you're on the hook.

Personally I would be much more at ease if above was the change. I think it's unrealistic clearing out what's already on the streets and I also don't think gun lobby/politically we will ever agree to a outright banning of legit gun ownership. Making it hard to get is best case scenario.

It's the conceal and carry law is what is going to kill us all!!!!

1. Mandatory safety courses are nothing but an inconvenience to an evil-possessed individual bent on destruction.

2. The shooter passed a background check. No “battery of tests” could identify anyone but a florid schizophrenic. So called psychological tests are objectively unreliable and depend on significant judgement (read guesswork) from the examiner.

3. The shooter used his own weapon. Most jurisdictions have enhanced penalties for criminal misuse of firearms. How much more “liable” can a person get in a death penalty jurisdiction like TX?

4. A huge number of people lawfully “conceal and carry” throughout the country, including in DC, MD and VA, every single day. They’re not the ones committing murder.

I’d like to know why the school was not more secure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why are we blaming everything else, it's the shooter and family that needs to be held accountable they failed

That doesn't help the 14 grieving moms and 14 grieving dads tonight.

If it were your kid would you just say "I blame the shooters parents" and nothing needs to change?

[Anonymous]

Can 21 families sue NRA, Abbott and every representative who has received money from gun lobbyists? $100 mln per lost life?